We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and free rubbers.

yes indeedy, we want the 1% to have the privilege of paying "their fair share," so that the 49% who pay no taxes can have their rights to more free stuff!

...and if you don't like what's in the Constitution then propose an amendment! That's the one single thing that ticks me off the most about the 2nd Amendment fight. And you know darned well why no one wants to put forth an amendment to remove the 2nd... because they'd lose in a landslide. Heck, I'd bet they'd barely get a majority of people who DONT own guns!

For anyone interested in a general primer (I'm guessing most here have watched Badnarik's Constitution class, but for those that may have not):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=....

start at the 11:00 min. mark...also covers property

Personally I don't have a problem with the 1% paying their fair share. But even if they do we can't afford the rights of the 49%.

We really need to have Bondzilla pay a visit.

Jduwaldt
Maybe someone who is pro 2nd amendment should propose one. It would be a great way to call the oppositions bluff and put them on record.

Define fair share.

Fair Share is generally used as code for that guy over -- > there and NOT ME should pay more

Fair share = flat tax as a percentage of gross, with no deductions (or earned income credits)

Bull****. Have 0% income tax and a consumption tax in it's place.

But of course we'd have to make damned sure stuff like the tax on gasoline / diesel actually DOES go towards the maintenance of the roads. Let Exxon Mobil decide what it's worth to THEM to protect the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Let THEM pass it on to the consumer....if it's too high, let the market decide that electric vehicles will or will not be a viable alternative.

No property taxes. If ya got a sewer, ya pay sewer tax. If you put your kid in publik school, you pay a school tax. In this day and age with the computer processing power available we should be on a total "pay as you go" system.

You are kidding, right Duc?

Pay as you go is so unMerikan! Heck, you would have people like my stepdad who never bought anything for himself wiping out the likes of Apple and Exxon.

Sarc off!

You get my idea though. Heck, pay as you go and a connnedsumption tax would truly wipe out the shell of what is the economy, right now.

However, that wouldn't be such a bad idea as we could then maybe rebuild this society and finally move forward.

Oh who am I kidding? To many interst groups, too many subsidized industries that would die in a NY minute in a really free market system that they hypocritically believe in, to actually get any traction.

Nonetheless, I am in total agreement with the consumption tax and pay as you go.

Of course, you could also kiss public school goodbye and we have too many sups and other admins making 150-300K per year to let that happen!

Good grief let the house just burn so we can get restarted.

Quote:

Heck, pay as you go and a connnedsumption tax would truly wipe out the shell of what is the economy, right now.

Yea, Uncle Sham (or Scam) would have a reset in about 3 hours.

Within 6 weeks there would be no more fat Americans.

We can dream, can't we?

Rights my ass...rights only exist to the extent that a society recognizes and backs it up with force if nessary.. They are NOT God-given and there's 175 million corpses from the 20th century which backs up that fact.

Rights are really only those things that you don't need societal permission to exercise. Everything else is a privilege. In this country, most of our former rights have become privileges.

“The Government can’t give you any right, because it’s not theirs to give” ----- Genesis.

It makes me sick how many people will quote the Constitution as it gives them this right, or that right. But when you ask them to show you where it says that they just say “everybody knows that.”
It is all twisted around. The Constitution doesn’t give anybody the right to do anything. It clearly state’s that these rights are already yours, and the government can’t take them away. Nothing else. So when you need the governments permission to exercise a right that is already yours you have already been deprived of your rights.
I wish everybody would also read and understand the 10 amendment it is the key to the entire Constitution. Also known as your bill of rights It is the last amendment in the bill of rights for a reason. It is also one sentence long written as clearly as they could to leave no wiggle room. It is by far the most important thing they were trying to do. Keep the federal government out of their lives as much as possible.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Karl,

You mentioned on the show you didn't know why tax day was moved to April 17th this year.

It's because it's Emancipation Day in Washington, D.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipatio....

Quote:

The municipality of Washington, D.C., celebrates April 16 as Emancipation Day. On that day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Compensated Emancipation Act for the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia.[4] The Act freed about 3,100 enslaved persons in the District of Columbia nine months before President Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation. The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act represents the only example of compensation by the federal government to former owners of emancipated slaves.[5]

On January 4, 2005, Mayor Anthony A. Williams signed legislation making Emancipation Day an official public holiday in the District. Although Emancipation Day occurs on April 16, by law when April 16 is a Saturday, Emancipation Day is observed on the preceding Friday.[6] Each year, a series of activities will be held during the public holiday including the traditional Emancipation Day parade celebrating the freedom of enslaved persons in the District of Columbia. The Emancipation Day celebration was held yearly from 1866 to 1901, and was resumed as a tradition and historic celebration in 2002[5] as a direct result of years of research, lobbying and leadership by Ms. Loretta Carter-Hanes.[citation needed]

In 2007, the observance of this holiday in Washington, D.C. had the effect of nationally extending the 2006 income tax filing deadline from April 16 to April 17. The 2007 date change was not discovered until after many forms went to print.[7] In 2011, the tax deadline was extended to Monday, April 18, since the observed date for the holiday was Friday, April 15.[8] In 2012, because Emancipation Day falls on Monday, April 16, and the normal tax deadline of April 15 falls on a Sunday, the tax deadline will be on Tuesday, April 17.[9]

So, they can't enforce peonage on emancipation day? TMD, fair share depends on what they are talking about. I believe the vast majority of Constitutional taxes were commerce taxes, collected through sales and rents. The average Joe was never supposed to file any kind of tax return, unless he was in taxable business. Tax returns predated the income tax, which was to be levied on incomes, which the vast majority of people didn't receive. An income was separated from the source. They made this apparent when they made the first $4000 tax free. In 1913, very few people made over $2 a day. The $13 a day, working 6 days a week, implied by $4000, would probably be like making $100 a hour, an amount few made outside of some kind of business enterprise. I doubt many doctors made that amount of money.

What is lost in all of this is Social Security is a pension one pays into, though it isn't exactly a pension. The less one makes, the more money they get in proportion to what they pay in. The Democrats are using this to muddy the water. The rich, who have a taxable salary, get a fraction back of what they pay in, though they do get a larger check. The argument needs to exclude Social security as a portion of ones taxes. The wealthier guys retirement check is also taxed at an increasing rate. I would venture the tax rate on the bottom 25%, when lifetime benefits paid back are put in the mix, is less than zero, thus negative.

The Wall Street schemes are another matter. Buffet is part of the elite, so I would venture his pleadings are to tax those upwardly mobile to keep the elite who they are. I don't believe outfits like Bain Capital and the others should be running businesses that derive tax preferred income out of business activities. The problem is they are going to raise the regular guys investment income taxes along with the businesses that operate specifically in this manner, using bank leverage and limited liability to boot. I do believe when I was taking taxes in the 1970's, this type activity wasn't accorded tax preference. There is a difference between systematic asset stripping and holding for investment.

As far as the radio program. One of your best Karl. There used to be some good meetings of what they called anti-government constitutionalists here in Dallas. A guy named Al Adask used to publish the Anti-Shyster magazine. He ran for Texas Supreme Court as a Libertarian and no law degree. He was the first guy I heard of that used the Declaration statement of inalienable rights endowed by the creator. Jefferson had hoped to carry this vision into the national government, but he quickly saw the fast money guys had taken charge. As you had to describe to the guy you mentioned in the radio show, it takes a lot to get rid of the brainwashing we go through. In fact, it is almost impossible.

This was a great show you did Karl. I heard near the end that Freed Slaves couldnt own guns? It explains almost everything - because if Freed Slaves were allowed to own guns legally, then a majority of the riots that have happend since emanipation, between poor whites and the black community would have never took place. If i remeber my history correct - the Irish were treated just as bad as blacks but they were whipped up into a frenzy once they started after the war once Union soliders came back to get work. Blacks couldnt own guns then...

And if its true that Guns are Civilviation, and blacks couldnt own them until very recently in the nations history...yipes.

Karl – This is one of the best BTRs ever. It’s mandatory listening and should be pinned.

More comment from my section. See you pinned this one. I agree with Wine, in that this topic has depth few Americans are even aware exists. There are a lot of rabbit holes in the old patriot movements, one of which is that the income tax applies only to taxable pursuits like alcohol, tobacco and firearms. Where are our agreements the government is supposed to be able to look in all our records? What happened to the 4th amendment? For whom do the police work? Ever had a policeman there when you were being ripped off? Chances are they were at Duncan Donuts. Who holds title to your car? You get a certificate, certifying one exists. Auto theft isn't prosecuted in the county where I live according to the investigator that investigated the theft of my mother's car a few years ago? Could it be they can't steal from me what isn't mine? Theories are we are engaged in a multitude of commercial agreements with the government. Are we waiving our rights under color of law, the UCC and penalties of perjury? The very money we use is nothing but commercial paper. Is the use or receipt of it in trade a taxable event? They damn sure don't want anyone using gold as money. What explains why it isn't as we have been told?

Anyone ever tried to track down lawful meaning and taken themselves to a law library has to know the canyon gets wide as one case leads to another and another. Case law stands on prior case law and generally the court will rule only on the argument raised. If the lawyers involved fail to raise the right argument, the judges will generally let it lie, even if they might be aware on an individual basis the proper argument. We, the people are largely dependent on the competence or incompetence of the over priced talent known as lawyers. Who can afford to settle an argument in court? This is especially true of the amount involved is a nickel and dime fine. A case in point is the red light camera tickets that are given out now. I have heard someone blew a hole in this game, but the truth of the matter is it is pursued as a civil case. Liquidated damages are $75 here. Look up Penalty Clause in Blacks Law Dictionary. Did the entity that sent someone the ticket (I haven't received one of these fines yet), sustain any damages because the accused ran a red light? Not one cent. In equity, the entity has no damages. Get a lawyer? For $75 that doesn't affect your driving record? Why not allow me to stand on the corner with a camera, take pictures and send my own bills? Not allowed? Then, they have endowed the company involved with a title of nobility to assess rents on the violation of regulated intersection rules? Who can afford to fight? Only the rich and famous and the large commercial concerns, whose goals might be totally unaligned with the general publics.

Few are situationed to contest this game. The people I know that butt heads with this stuff are either poor or always in trouble with the authorities. One might note David Henry Thoreau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David....

I heard a guy on tape once, I think it was the infamous David Dodge who discovered the books that published a 13th amendment on the prohibition of titles of nobility that later disappeared who stated that upon being jailed, Thoreau was visited by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who asked Thoreau, "What are you doing in there"? To which, in an off hand manner of asking why he wasn't in there with him, replied, "what are you doing out there"?

The question people have to begin to ask themselves is why do we need the government as a party to our contracts in the first place? This is really where the camels nose has entered the tent. It is how the government manages and runs crony capitalism, something that has been going on for longer than most of us might imagine. No one noticed as long as there was free land, but since the 1930's, the noose has tightened. Free land was taken off the market, because it affected the collateral value of bank loans on farms. Read the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 its basis and purpose statement and its enabling act, the Act of October 6, 1917 as amended, codified as 12USC95a and 50USC5b. Most licensing in the US followed the inauguration of FDR and the enactment of authority to license provided. Texas didn't enact drivers license rules until afterwards and I have a tape somewhere that a guy defended himself in Grapevine Texas court with statements from the Texas House and Senate that despite the apparent effect of the license law, traveling on the roads of Texas was a right and not a privilege. Why have we been educated differently?

So much for the cloudy, somewhat tinfoil issues in a lot of cases. The point of all of this is to raise the issue that maybe our rights have been legislated and then signed away in commercial contracts? Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Since we are generally represented in court by ignorant attorneys, how can we be expected to know the law when they don't? Aren't most Supreme Court rulings 5-4? That means either 5 or 4 of them don't know the law either. In any case, I wore myself out on the stuff I described above in the 1990's and only bring up the areas that seemed to have some basis in fact. Don't take my word for anything, as it takes a hell of a lot of work to even begin to comprehend whether an angle is correct or not. The 2 deepest rabbit holes are the birth certificate and social security number. Both imply the US citizen to be property of a trust, our property, property of a trust and only use at under the graces of government, the trustee. None of these ideas have any validity if one wants to go on living their day to day life, but I believe they are important avenues of law to examine. The rules of necessity in government are deep and historical as well, going back to Rome and likely before. These are merely clues as to what has been going on during the constant erosion of freedom in America. The question is, have we waived our right and have some been taken under rules of necessity? The importance of this only relates to ones position on the totem pole and whether one has the desire to live free of these impediments, if they do indeed exist.

The main reason I am glad this is pinned is the classical economic and political literature I am finding on the net that covers this subject of political and economic freedom. This is stuff they didn't tell us business majors about in political science or the history books. Here is a morsel I have been chewing on for awhile, only 26 pages, about the freedom movement under the rule of Napoleon and the king that followed in France. Written by Leonard Liggio, whose writings are well worth reading in the libertarian forum.

http://leonardliggio.org/wp-content/uplo....

Quote:

The libertarian position comprises two distinct claims: first, we have a right not to be aggressed against (call this the Positive Thesis); second, we have no other rights (call this the Negative Thesis). While neither of these theses is uncontroversial, the Negative Thesis is likely to meet with far more dissent than the Positive Thesis. But for the libertarian, any such differential response must express a confusion, because the Positive Thesis turns out to entail the Negative Thesis (at least with the help of some truistic auxiliary premises).

For libertarians, the concept of rights belongs in the first instance to the realm of interpersonal ethics, and applies to the political realm only secondarily. That is because, for libertarians – as for the liberal tradition generally – rights are not the product of a political regime, but are prior to such regimes and constitute a constraint on them. Hence rights cannot without circularity be defined in terms of the purposes of a political regime. If political regimes are constrained by certain pre-existing rights, and indeed have as one of their purposes the protection of these rights, then it must be possible to describe what these rights require without presupposing the existence of a political regime. A crucial feature of libertarian political theorizing is the insistence that not just the precise nature, but the very existence, of political authority requires justification and cannot simply be assumed. If we start from the basic natural rights that human beings would have in any social context, including a state of nature, then the specification of a particular political regime cannot subtract from that array of rights; but then it cannot add to it either, for, as we shall see, the addition of one right always involves the subtraction of another.

How, then, are rights to be defined, if all reference to political institutions is to be omitted? To have a right is to have a moral claim against another person or persons; but not every such moral claim is a right. My having a right to be treated in a certain manner involves, at least, other people having an obligation so to treat me; but it must involve more than this, for not every such obligation has a right as its correlate. I have an obligation to be polite to my associates and grateful to my benefactors, but they have no right (except metaphorically) to my politeness or my gratitude.

~ Roderick Long, "Why Libertarians Believe There Is Only One Right"

I have listened to the podcast three times already. Downloaded it for friends as well. Best BTR yet, and I have listened to >50% of them all.

Lowbeyond wrote..

Fair Share is generally used as code for that guy over -- > there and NOT ME should pay more

Bingo.

And it works the same way for any benefits. THAT GUY OVER THERE shouldn't get any handouts but by George, I deserve every dime of any entitlements when they help ME out (including tax entitlements).