TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (09/10/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > As for taxes themselves, the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall >be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of >law". For "life" and "liberty" this is universally interpreted as >meaning that those can be taken away only if a person is convicted of >a crime or found liable in a civil trial. What is the justification >for interpreting "property" in a different way? Depends on what one means by "due process of law". Is a legislature enacting legislation "due process of law"? I would think so. So a legislative body can pass laws saying "you have to pay this tax we just dreamt up", but some government official cannot call you up and say "hey, you have to pay this tax that i just dreamt up". Being "deprived of liberty" doesn't require being found guilty of a crime -- at least it didn't -- what about the military draft? (note that i am NOT arguing the merits of the draft; this is just an example) >And if that isn't >clear enough, the Fifth Amendment goes on to say "nor shall private >property be taken for public use without just compensation". One could argue that the "just compensation" derived from taxation is the range of government "services" -- military and police protection, etc. More polite than an emperor asking for an annual tribute, i suppose. > The 13th amendment bans "involultary servitude" except for people >convicted of crimes. A federal income tax rate of 28% means you are >working more than three months each year without compensation. Is >this voluntary servitude? Not in my case. Who is forcing you to work at all? > It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did >not intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts >have never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way of >their interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when they >are still living and vehemently object to the court's interpretation. As it should be -- you'd think that educated people could write what they mean. It is not very difficult to write unambiguous sentences. > How do we decide if it is an invasion or not for who who to enter > the country by what means etc? > > This is something libertarians differ on. Some say that anyone >should be allowed into the country - that everyone has the same >rights whether they were born here or not. Or, under a libertarian system, would it be up to those people who own ports, airports, beaches, and land bordering the country to decide who is allowed to "trespass"? > Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the market >will bear. This would provide revenue to government in lieu of taxes >from citizens. Does the inverse hold? If someone cannot afford their debts to the government, would they be stripped of their citizenship? That would be one way to get rid of criminals -- "gee, your trial cost $9 billion -- pay up or get out". -joe testa- ------- -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA> > It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did >not intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts >have never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way >of their interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when >they are still living and vehemently object to the court's >interpretation. As it should be -- you'd think that educated people could write what they mean. It is not very difficult to write unambiguous sentences. The constitution is pretty unambiguous. There is some fuzziness in the interpretation of some of the amendments, but the official interpretation is often well outside any reasonable interpretation of what the amendment says. The Second Amendment is the classic example. > Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the >market will bear. This would provide revenue to government in >lieu of taxes from citizens. Does the inverse hold? If someone cannot afford their debts to the government, would they be stripped of their citizenship? That would be one way to get rid of criminals -- "gee, your trial cost $9 billion -- pay up or get out". Actually, that was a punishment for some crimes until the 1940s, when the Supreme Court ruled that being stripped of citizenship was "cruel and unusual". Interesting that they find it a harsher punishment than being put to death! Personally, I don't believe in citizenship. A person's rights have nothing to do with his government. Governments often VIOLATE rights, and some do so much more than others, but rights do not come from governments. Rights are intrinsic. So the rights that a person has have nothing to do with whether he is a US citizen or not. Since citizenship makes (or should make) no difference, it is (or should be) meaningless. ...Keith -------