You are forgetting the simple truth that all of this has gone through SCOTUS and that is where we found out that in fact what is taxed is not income but profits and it's not a direct tax, it's an excise, and profits are defined by the corporate balance sheet. Well, it's not that you are forgetting, you just never knew it.
If we could acheive a better society but had to violate some principle of the Constitution (or at least by some interpretations), I'd burn the damn thing myself. It isn't holy. It isn't handed to us by God himself. It wasn't created by super humans. It was written a very long time ago, and the world has changed,
- exactly my point is that for a huge block of population, especially those who are in a position that you are describing (you sound like you are surrounded by people who don't have insurance, so pretty poor I suppose, what no jobs even?)
So you, and people that surround you shouldn't have a voice in the government, because you would always vote for every thing that puts obligations on all other people to provide you with entitlements, and you surely feel that the world must give you things.
Now, I don't like people being in bad situations, so from my perspective what should be happening is the wealth of the entire system must increase, and for this purpose the people should be free to start businesses, because it's business that increases wealth, not sitting at home doing nothing - that certainly doesn't increase wealth.
The wealth in USA was growing precisely at a time when Constitutional principles were upheld, when government was limited and people who didn't themselves participate in production of wealth could not change the direction of the country by voting to redistribute the wealth that is created.
Instead the Constitution kept the government in check, allowed the wealth to be re-invested over and over, which is why USA became world largest manufacturer, exporter and creditor nation in 19th century but more precisely between the years 1870 and 1913, while the dollar gained value by factor of 2 and competition in the market forced prices to drop year to year, helping exactly the people who did not have much.
The richer people could afford things even when things were more expensive, the competition that the free market allowed pushed prices lower helping not the rich, but helping the poor.
Of-course by helping the poor with their investments in business, the rich got richer, but so did the entire population and even foreigners, who got to enjoy the exported goods.
Surely the people in 19th century who were NOT rich themselves, had feelings that were very similarly to yours - why should we care about what the Constitution says, it was written in the last century, it's just a paper, it's not handed down by god, etc.etc., all the same nonsense.
Of-course Constitution wasn't handed down by god, that's the point, it was designed with one goal in mind: preventing corruption in government, and this practice, of preventing massive government corruption, is what prevented the government from stealing from the private sector up until 1913, when both, the Federal reserve and income taxes were introduced.
From then on the prices for goods and services always went up, they have not gone down as they did for a hundred years preceding that time. The government found ways to slow down competition, in many cases completely nationalising entire industries (utilities, telecommunications, as they handed monopoly to AT&T killing 3000 competitors, agriculture, eventually insurance, starting with banking insurance - FDIC, then all other types of insurance, SS, Medicare, then education, etc.etc.).
By now the system is so corrupt that the obvious corruption in government is cheered by a huge swath of the population, because they are bought and paid for with everything, from food stamps to SS and Medicare and welfare and EI, but also military contracts, etc.etc.
There is one thing that you are not taking into consideration. SOMEBODY IS PAYING FOR THIS.
When they realise that they can't get their money back, they'll stop paying, and in their case it's not about giving your paper. USA prints paper. In their case it's about giving you the things you buy and use. They are paying for your lifestyle with their productivit
Without monarchy or dictatorship, the people are free to establish a gov't if they so desire.
Between 2 individuals there is no such concept as a 'right', it is completely and utterly meaningless outside of the relationship of an individual to the collective.
WHO do you think you are going to complain to, if there is no government and I beat the shit out of you and shoot you in the head and take your stuff?
What do you think, that an abstract concept of a 'right' makes ANY DIFFERENCE to me under circumstances if there is no government?
So get this through your thick stupid head - if there is no government, then there is NO AUTHORITY except for some private protection force and if that's the case, you can't wave some paper with anything that says: 'my rights' on it, it is worth precisely zip.
The rights only exist if there is a government, if there is government established by the people and the people decide that under the law they are equal in that system, then yes, there are rights that individuals have by default that the GOVERNMENT cannot step over.
But again: who, do you think, gives a SHIT about your idea of a 'right' outside of a government that is set up with that purpose in mind?
And that is the entire point that you still can't understand, even as it is chewed up and placed squarely into your dumb mouth, you still can't get it.
No, you are stupid. Businesses do NOT have rights, only individuals do. What can I say, you don't understand what rights are.
As to restricting businesses in any way - this does mean restricting individual rights of people to do business, that's all it means. A corporation for example is fiction, it is a front, the people behind it drive the business, business doesn't drive itself. You are talking about restricting individual rights, but you call me stupid. What a let down.
and again, you should actually read what I wrote here and understand that it is not just the Amendment, which by the way again, does not specify that the tax is direct (it is not, it's an excise), and the SCOTUS has explained how exactly this income tax is Constitutional.
It's Constitutional as an indirect excise tax on a profit calculated with a corporate balance sheet (all incomes minus all expenses).
Individuals do not have corporate balance sheets, and it's their income that is taxed, not the difference between their income and their expenses.
The SCOTUS specifically said that this is not a direct tax, it's an excise, because it's unapportioned. The 16 amendment does not state that this is a direct tax either. The unapportioned direct tax cannot be applied to individuals, it was only explained to be Constitutional (by SCOTUS, and this still stands today) as a tax that must separate the income from its source, and in later decisions (that still stand) SCOTUS explained how to separate these - with a corporate balance sheet.
again, again, again, this here is about Ron Paul, the fucking OP says: Ron Paul is a fascist (that's his argument, read his comment).
Ron Paul is the guy who does NOT want government to give any specific privileges to businesses, he is the guy who does not want the government to steal any rights from people and sell those to other people (or businesses).
There is NOTHING that Ron Paul stands for that would provide businesses with anything from government.
Everything Ron Paul stands for is about making sure that the individuals have their rights and that government cannot steal these rights and sell them.
Where do you get this idea that Ron Paul would give any specific privileges to businesses? I don't understand what you are talking about.
Good for the judge. AFAIC all patents and copyrights must be abolished, the less government intervention in the economy the healthier the economy is. Today government is involved in every aspect of economy and we can see the outcomes.
what is the point you are trying to bring across? Ron Paul is not for government giving special privileges to businesses, he is not for government giving special privileges to individuals either, he is against government stealing freedom from individuals and against government selling power also.
Again, read the sig, the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals, and I am showing there how the government manipulated together with SCOTUS do create a system that does de-facto what is unconstitutional.
The taxation powers of Congress are well defined, they are not unlimited, otherwise you have a gov't with unlimited powers that can tax you into doing anything it can't legislate you directly into doing.
Here is something you just may be able to wrap your mind around (and I am going to skip the epithet, regardless of your earlier comment where you do use them).
Say the Congress passed a law that stated: US government is authorised to kill the known terrorist - Osama bin Laden.
Say this went to SCOTUS and they said: yeah, sure, it's good.
Now the government says: Ok, we can kill the known terrorist bin Laden and we are going to use this law to kill other terrorists. Then later they continue: and we are going to kill people we think are terrorists.
All of a sudden from a very SPECIFIC interpretation of the law, the law is expanded and now the government has broad powers to kill anybody just because they say that person is a terrorist.
Should SCOTUS take into consideration the past performance of government that used this exact tactic over and over and over and over and over and over (and I do provide one example with the income taxes, but I can provide huge number of examples of this abuse).
You say: SCOTUS should read 'between the lines', I say: yes, absolutely they should.
They should read between the lines of the new law.
What the moon is made of is not a Constitutional question, so it's beside the point. I guess you can't make your case without using ridiculous examples, huh?
The court should not be in business of protecting the legislation, but that is what it is doing. It is using very narrow loopholes to pass legislation for the administration (and it's been busy doing it for over 100 years now), and then the power that the court takes away from the people and gives to the government with these very narrow interpretations is taken.
The power is stolen in very narrow interpretations and then it is expanded to cover something that is specifically against the ruling of the court, and IF the court was REALLY interested in protecting the Constitution instead of giving the legislative an the executive branch powers that they are not authorised to have, then the court wouldn't allow most of the legislation to stand.
Reading between the lines should be done on the level of LEGISLATION.
If the legislation is passed with a very narrow idea of how it is Constitutional, but the court then ignores all the precedents, when gov't then took the legislation that was passed and expanded it into the area that is absolutely unconstitutional, then the court should DENY ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS, the court should deny passing as Constitutional laws by using very narrow loopholes.
Something that is Constitutional given a very narrow interpretation under very specific conditions becomes de-facto the law because once it is passed the SCOTUS, then it is very unlikely to be brought back for another review.
That's because then there are these barriers: lower courts and the SCOTUS itself not taking the cases for review again. Why, they already looked at it once, why bother again?
But here is the problem (and you should again, look at the sig).
The mandate in ACA for example only stands as a tax that is low (the details are in that linked comment). Once the law is deemed 'Constitutional' under that narrow provision, it now will be abused, because it will not make it to SCOTUS again once the tax (fine) is raised.
But it MUST go back to SCOTUS, but it won't, and that's why I give the example of how that was done with the income taxes.
Again, read the sig.
Income tax is only legal as a PROFIT TAX on CORPORATE BALANCE SHEET.
It is not an income tax, it is a corporate profit tax, it is only legal as an indirect excise tax on corporate profits.
However it is enforced as a DIRECT PERSONAL tax on INCOME, not on corporate profits, and there is NO SCOTUS decision to allow that, yet it stands.
So you have to decide, are you actually arguing for protecting the Constitution in spirit and letter or are you arguing for allowing the government to expand beyond the authority given to it by the law (Constitution) because SCOTUS works for the government in order to find these narrow loopholes to push the legislation through and then doesn't wan to hear about it again?
so you are of an opinion that if tomorrow the SCOTUS said that in fact the Moon is made of cheese and because of that you are now property of the Moon colony, who has ability to send you into open space without a space suit to mine the cheese from the moon, then it would be Constitutional?
You should actually read my sig and click on it and read it, I have plenty of evidence to consider first, before you decide that SCOTUS actually defines what is Constitutional. SCOTUS is not supposed to be interpreting the Constitution, it's only supposed to be deciding whether the legislation, the law that is passed by Congress is Constitutional or not. While doing it if the decisions are not in fact relying on understanding of the Constitution, the letter of it or the intent, and instead of the decisions are specifically designed to pass legislation with various loopholes and then later the legislation expands way BEYOND the SCOTUS decision and remains as the 'law', then it is all done to HACK the Constitution, not to protect it.
The SCOTUS has been hacking the Constitution, not trying to protect it for a long time now. The SCOTUS has failed in its mission.
It's going to be a great smartphone, it will be very smart, every pixel on it will be personally supervised by Bezos and you'll be able to use the smartphone for everything!
You can browse Amazon with it. You can email to Amazon with it. You can buy from Amazon with it. You can sell on Amazon with it. You can Amazon the Amazon with it.
It's so great, that they will put Amazon into Amazon because they heard that you like to Amazon while you Amazon.
Between you and I there are no 'rights', we are supposedly equal individual, neither is nobility and even if you are nobility somewhere else, it doesn't matter to me.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals, but this does NOT mean that there is no 'morality' at play. In fact morality is a concept that is much OLDER than anything known as a 'right', so something for you to think about.
Yeah, Magna Carta didn't do shit, the people held the King hostage in order to force him to sign it, in any case this is not something that gives the common people equality under law, the bishops, the barons, etc., they still were the owners of the people.
The USA revolution against the King was the revolution against nobility, against taxes without representation and for the rights of the people whose rights don't really exist in a system where the law does not recognise the people as equals (under the law).
Private property rights only exist to protect your property against government seizing it.
As to an individual stealing from you, that's a violation of a RULE, not of a right. The rule is: murder, rape, steal, etc., you are going to be punished.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO PUNISH IN A GOVERNMENT? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PUNISH GOVERNMENT?
That's the entire reason for the concept of what a right is - you can't punish a government, you can't do anything to government postfactum, you can only establish the strict relationship between the individual and the collective, have the so called 'rights' by default and give gov't authority that can only violate the rights under very strict and limited conditions.
When Ron Paul says freedom, he does really mean it.
Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
To Ron Paul freedom literally means freedom from government oppression. The government cannot exist to protect business interests, the government exists to protect INDIVIDUAL interests and not group interests.
Business interests are not individual interests, and freedom requires that government does not discriminate by groups. Thus there can be no special interest that is business interest in government.
In Ron Paul's government the government cannot steal individual liberties from people and thus it cannot sell them to businesses.
Your comment is not just a Troll but also the hight of ignorance.
Calling people who support individual freedoms 'brown shirts' gives the final touch on your completely trollish comment, you are equating people who do not want government to run their lives with nazis.
What I find scary is/., because the popular moderation chose to prop up your comment to Insightful
I would NOT mind your comment at +5 Crazy Fucking Nazi Troll, but Insightfull it is not.
Supreme Court also consists of people who came out of the general population, so to speak.
SCOTUS has been completely worthless for over 100 years now, it has failed and violated the reason for its own existence.
The SCOTUS is not there to protect the People. The SCOTUS is not there to protect the POTUS. The SCOTUS is not there to protect the government. The SCOTUS is not there to protect legislation.
The SCOTUS is there to protect only one thing: Constitution.
Constitution is the foundation, the law upon which the Union is established. Without the grounding law that Constitution lays, there is no union, there is no legitimate federal government.
You can see my sig for some of the unfortunate failures by SCOTUS, this includes ACA but also the ruling on the income taxes.
And No, it is not just government. Employers colluding in an area, making the opportunities there just as shitty, is not a fault of government.
- of-course it is. These companies face no competition, and it's not only rules, regulations and taxes that prevent competition, it's also inflation - fake money, which sets interest rates at levels that are unaffordable by ANY business. The natural rate of interest at this point probably crossed into triple digits already, the only entity capable of getting credit is government, so it crowded out all investment and the only way that gov't can still get credit is by printing the money that is used to provide this credit.
Then this money is laundered through a system of banks and Treasury bond sales.
Wow you are dense. Private property right is a right of the individual not to have his property seized by the government without going through the lawful procedures that are established in the Constitution for such occasions.
An individual trying to steal from you or kill you or engage in some other act of violence against you is not in violation of your rights, because the concept of a 'right' does not exist on individual level, the right is the limit that the government cannot step over, that's when the concept of rights is established.
For violent acts against people we do decide to punish people, but that punishment is not in response to a 'right violation', it is only response to violence with the rules defining that one person cannot for example kill another without repercussions.
Again: right is a limit to government abusing you in ways that are unauthorised to the government, there is no other principle by which a right can be defined. The very principle by which a right is defined is derived from the understanding that under a totalitarian system, a monarchy or any other system where people are NOT in fact equal under the law is not a good system. The system that people do prefer (supposedly) is the one where people ARE equal under the law. Equality under the law requires that government has limits to what it can do to any specific individual, because one individual can be above another individual by law, then there can be no limits as to what government can do to an individual.
Rights are limits that are not supposed to be crossed by government authority.
Another individual that is not a government employee hurting you is not a violation of any rights of yours, it's a violation of criminal code, that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are forgetting the simple truth that all of this has gone through SCOTUS and that is where we found out that in fact what is taxed is not income but profits and it's not a direct tax, it's an excise, and profits are defined by the corporate balance sheet. Well, it's not that you are forgetting, you just never knew it.
If we could acheive a better society but had to violate some principle of the Constitution (or at least by some interpretations), I'd burn the damn thing myself. It isn't holy. It isn't handed to us by God himself. It wasn't created by super humans. It was written a very long time ago, and the world has changed,
- exactly my point is that for a huge block of population, especially those who are in a position that you are describing (you sound like you are surrounded by people who don't have insurance, so pretty poor I suppose, what no jobs even?)
So you, and people that surround you shouldn't have a voice in the government, because you would always vote for every thing that puts obligations on all other people to provide you with entitlements, and you surely feel that the world must give you things.
Now, I don't like people being in bad situations, so from my perspective what should be happening is the wealth of the entire system must increase, and for this purpose the people should be free to start businesses, because it's business that increases wealth, not sitting at home doing nothing - that certainly doesn't increase wealth.
The wealth in USA was growing precisely at a time when Constitutional principles were upheld, when government was limited and people who didn't themselves participate in production of wealth could not change the direction of the country by voting to redistribute the wealth that is created.
Instead the Constitution kept the government in check, allowed the wealth to be re-invested over and over, which is why USA became world largest manufacturer, exporter and creditor nation in 19th century but more precisely between the years 1870 and 1913, while the dollar gained value by factor of 2 and competition in the market forced prices to drop year to year, helping exactly the people who did not have much.
The richer people could afford things even when things were more expensive, the competition that the free market allowed pushed prices lower helping not the rich, but helping the poor.
Of-course by helping the poor with their investments in business, the rich got richer, but so did the entire population and even foreigners, who got to enjoy the exported goods.
Surely the people in 19th century who were NOT rich themselves, had feelings that were very similarly to yours - why should we care about what the Constitution says, it was written in the last century, it's just a paper, it's not handed down by god, etc.etc., all the same nonsense.
Of-course Constitution wasn't handed down by god, that's the point, it was designed with one goal in mind: preventing corruption in government, and this practice, of preventing massive government corruption, is what prevented the government from stealing from the private sector up until 1913, when both, the Federal reserve and income taxes were introduced.
From then on the prices for goods and services always went up, they have not gone down as they did for a hundred years preceding that time. The government found ways to slow down competition, in many cases completely nationalising entire industries (utilities, telecommunications, as they handed monopoly to AT&T killing 3000 competitors, agriculture, eventually insurance, starting with banking insurance - FDIC, then all other types of insurance, SS, Medicare, then education, etc.etc.).
By now the system is so corrupt that the obvious corruption in government is cheered by a huge swath of the population, because they are bought and paid for with everything, from food stamps to SS and Medicare and welfare and EI, but also military contracts, etc.etc.
There is one thing that you are not taking into consideration. SOMEBODY IS PAYING FOR THIS.
When they realise that they can't get their money back, they'll stop paying, and in their case it's not about giving your paper. USA prints paper. In their case it's about giving you the things you buy and use. They are paying for your lifestyle with their productivit
You are waiting for ACA, you got it, read my sig.
Without monarchy or dictatorship, the people are free to establish a gov't if they so desire.
Between 2 individuals there is no such concept as a 'right', it is completely and utterly meaningless outside of the relationship of an individual to the collective.
WHO do you think you are going to complain to, if there is no government and I beat the shit out of you and shoot you in the head and take your stuff?
What do you think, that an abstract concept of a 'right' makes ANY DIFFERENCE to me under circumstances if there is no government?
So get this through your thick stupid head - if there is no government, then there is NO AUTHORITY except for some private protection force and if that's the case, you can't wave some paper with anything that says: 'my rights' on it, it is worth precisely zip.
The rights only exist if there is a government, if there is government established by the people and the people decide that under the law they are equal in that system, then yes, there are rights that individuals have by default that the GOVERNMENT cannot step over.
But again: who, do you think, gives a SHIT about your idea of a 'right' outside of a government that is set up with that purpose in mind?
And that is the entire point that you still can't understand, even as it is chewed up and placed squarely into your dumb mouth, you still can't get it.
I didn't redefine anything, you have no idea what the word means. A right exists only as a relation between individual and a collective.
Between 2 equal individuals the concept is completely meaningless.
no, you dumb shit, it's not 'my interpretation', it's this.
No, you are stupid. Businesses do NOT have rights, only individuals do. What can I say, you don't understand what rights are.
As to restricting businesses in any way - this does mean restricting individual rights of people to do business, that's all it means. A corporation for example is fiction, it is a front, the people behind it drive the business, business doesn't drive itself. You are talking about restricting individual rights, but you call me stupid. What a let down.
and again, you should actually read what I wrote here and understand that it is not just the Amendment, which by the way again, does not specify that the tax is direct (it is not, it's an excise), and the SCOTUS has explained how exactly this income tax is Constitutional.
It's Constitutional as an indirect excise tax on a profit calculated with a corporate balance sheet (all incomes minus all expenses).
Individuals do not have corporate balance sheets, and it's their income that is taxed, not the difference between their income and their expenses.
The SCOTUS specifically said that this is not a direct tax, it's an excise, because it's unapportioned. The 16 amendment does not state that this is a direct tax either. The unapportioned direct tax cannot be applied to individuals, it was only explained to be Constitutional (by SCOTUS, and this still stands today) as a tax that must separate the income from its source, and in later decisions (that still stand) SCOTUS explained how to separate these - with a corporate balance sheet.
Can you ever!
(in the voices of all Simpsons characters singing about the Monorail): Amazon, Amazooooooon, Amazoooooooooooooooooon!
Ama... Doh!
again, again, again, this here is about Ron Paul, the fucking OP says: Ron Paul is a fascist (that's his argument, read his comment).
Ron Paul is the guy who does NOT want government to give any specific privileges to businesses, he is the guy who does not want the government to steal any rights from people and sell those to other people (or businesses).
There is NOTHING that Ron Paul stands for that would provide businesses with anything from government.
Everything Ron Paul stands for is about making sure that the individuals have their rights and that government cannot steal these rights and sell them.
Where do you get this idea that Ron Paul would give any specific privileges to businesses? I don't understand what you are talking about.
Good for the judge. AFAIC all patents and copyrights must be abolished, the less government intervention in the economy the healthier the economy is. Today government is involved in every aspect of economy and we can see the outcomes.
what is the point you are trying to bring across? Ron Paul is not for government giving special privileges to businesses, he is not for government giving special privileges to individuals either, he is against government stealing freedom from individuals and against government selling power also.
So what's your point?
it's true, I read it in reviews on Amazon!
Again, read the sig, the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals, and I am showing there how the government manipulated together with SCOTUS do create a system that does de-facto what is unconstitutional.
The taxation powers of Congress are well defined, they are not unlimited, otherwise you have a gov't with unlimited powers that can tax you into doing anything it can't legislate you directly into doing.
Here is something you just may be able to wrap your mind around (and I am going to skip the epithet, regardless of your earlier comment where you do use them).
Say the Congress passed a law that stated: US government is authorised to kill the known terrorist - Osama bin Laden.
Say this went to SCOTUS and they said: yeah, sure, it's good.
Now the government says: Ok, we can kill the known terrorist bin Laden and we are going to use this law to kill other terrorists. Then later they continue: and we are going to kill people we think are terrorists.
All of a sudden from a very SPECIFIC interpretation of the law, the law is expanded and now the government has broad powers to kill anybody just because they say that person is a terrorist.
Should SCOTUS take into consideration the past performance of government that used this exact tactic over and over and over and over and over and over (and I do provide one example with the income taxes, but I can provide huge number of examples of this abuse).
You say: SCOTUS should read 'between the lines', I say: yes, absolutely they should.
They should read between the lines of the new law.
What the moon is made of is not a Constitutional question, so it's beside the point. I guess you can't make your case without using ridiculous examples, huh?
- it's called a metaphor, look it up. As I said, I actually have real life examples here, it's about the ACA and income taxes in that journal entry.
The court should not be in business of protecting the legislation, but that is what it is doing. It is using very narrow loopholes to pass legislation for the administration (and it's been busy doing it for over 100 years now), and then the power that the court takes away from the people and gives to the government with these very narrow interpretations is taken.
The power is stolen in very narrow interpretations and then it is expanded to cover something that is specifically against the ruling of the court, and IF the court was REALLY interested in protecting the Constitution instead of giving the legislative an the executive branch powers that they are not authorised to have, then the court wouldn't allow most of the legislation to stand.
Reading between the lines should be done on the level of LEGISLATION.
If the legislation is passed with a very narrow idea of how it is Constitutional, but the court then ignores all the precedents, when gov't then took the legislation that was passed and expanded it into the area that is absolutely unconstitutional, then the court should DENY ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS, the court should deny passing as Constitutional laws by using very narrow loopholes.
Something that is Constitutional given a very narrow interpretation under very specific conditions becomes de-facto the law because once it is passed the SCOTUS, then it is very unlikely to be brought back for another review.
That's because then there are these barriers: lower courts and the SCOTUS itself not taking the cases for review again. Why, they already looked at it once, why bother again?
But here is the problem (and you should again, look at the sig).
The mandate in ACA for example only stands as a tax that is low (the details are in that linked comment). Once the law is deemed 'Constitutional' under that narrow provision, it now will be abused, because it will not make it to SCOTUS again once the tax (fine) is raised.
But it MUST go back to SCOTUS, but it won't, and that's why I give the example of how that was done with the income taxes.
Again, read the sig.
Income tax is only legal as a PROFIT TAX on CORPORATE BALANCE SHEET.
It is not an income tax, it is a corporate profit tax, it is only legal as an indirect excise tax on corporate profits.
However it is enforced as a DIRECT PERSONAL tax on INCOME, not on corporate profits, and there is NO SCOTUS decision to allow that, yet it stands.
So you have to decide, are you actually arguing for protecting the Constitution in spirit and letter or are you arguing for allowing the government to expand beyond the authority given to it by the law (Constitution) because SCOTUS works for the government in order to find these narrow loopholes to push the legislation through and then doesn't wan to hear about it again?
What are your priorities, really?
so you are of an opinion that if tomorrow the SCOTUS said that in fact the Moon is made of cheese and because of that you are now property of the Moon colony, who has ability to send you into open space without a space suit to mine the cheese from the moon, then it would be Constitutional?
You should actually read my sig and click on it and read it, I have plenty of evidence to consider first, before you decide that SCOTUS actually defines what is Constitutional. SCOTUS is not supposed to be interpreting the Constitution, it's only supposed to be deciding whether the legislation, the law that is passed by Congress is Constitutional or not. While doing it if the decisions are not in fact relying on understanding of the Constitution, the letter of it or the intent, and instead of the decisions are specifically designed to pass legislation with various loopholes and then later the legislation expands way BEYOND the SCOTUS decision and remains as the 'law', then it is all done to HACK the Constitution, not to protect it.
The SCOTUS has been hacking the Constitution, not trying to protect it for a long time now. The SCOTUS has failed in its mission.
It's going to be a great smartphone, it will be very smart, every pixel on it will be personally supervised by Bezos and you'll be able to use the smartphone for everything!
You can browse Amazon with it.
You can email to Amazon with it.
You can buy from Amazon with it.
You can sell on Amazon with it.
You can Amazon the Amazon with it.
It's so great, that they will put Amazon into Amazon because they heard that you like to Amazon while you Amazon.
Between you and I there are no 'rights', we are supposedly equal individual, neither is nobility and even if you are nobility somewhere else, it doesn't matter to me.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals, but this does NOT mean that there is no 'morality' at play. In fact morality is a concept that is much OLDER than anything known as a 'right', so something for you to think about.
Yeah, Magna Carta didn't do shit, the people held the King hostage in order to force him to sign it, in any case this is not something that gives the common people equality under law, the bishops, the barons, etc., they still were the owners of the people.
The USA revolution against the King was the revolution against nobility, against taxes without representation and for the rights of the people whose rights don't really exist in a system where the law does not recognise the people as equals (under the law).
Private property rights only exist to protect your property against government seizing it.
As to an individual stealing from you, that's a violation of a RULE, not of a right. The rule is: murder, rape, steal, etc., you are going to be punished.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO PUNISH IN A GOVERNMENT? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PUNISH GOVERNMENT?
That's the entire reason for the concept of what a right is - you can't punish a government, you can't do anything to government postfactum, you can only establish the strict relationship between the individual and the collective, have the so called 'rights' by default and give gov't authority that can only violate the rights under very strict and limited conditions.
When Ron Paul says freedom, he does really mean it.
Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
To Ron Paul freedom literally means freedom from government oppression. The government cannot exist to protect business interests, the government exists to protect INDIVIDUAL interests and not group interests.
Business interests are not individual interests, and freedom requires that government does not discriminate by groups. Thus there can be no special interest that is business interest in government.
In Ron Paul's government the government cannot steal individual liberties from people and thus it cannot sell them to businesses.
Your comment is not just a Troll but also the hight of ignorance.
Calling people who support individual freedoms 'brown shirts' gives the final touch on your completely trollish comment, you are equating people who do not want government to run their lives with nazis.
What I find scary is /., because the popular moderation chose to prop up your comment to Insightful
I would NOT mind your comment at +5 Crazy Fucking Nazi Troll, but Insightfull it is not.
Hey, dumb shit, libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians founded USA, anarchists wouldn't have done it.
Supreme Court also consists of people who came out of the general population, so to speak.
SCOTUS has been completely worthless for over 100 years now, it has failed and violated the reason for its own existence.
The SCOTUS is not there to protect the People.
The SCOTUS is not there to protect the POTUS.
The SCOTUS is not there to protect the government.
The SCOTUS is not there to protect legislation.
The SCOTUS is there to protect only one thing: Constitution.
Constitution is the foundation, the law upon which the Union is established. Without the grounding law that Constitution lays, there is no union, there is no legitimate federal government.
You can see my sig for some of the unfortunate failures by SCOTUS, this includes ACA but also the ruling on the income taxes.
And No, it is not just government. Employers colluding in an area, making the opportunities there just as shitty, is not a fault of government.
- of-course it is. These companies face no competition, and it's not only rules, regulations and taxes that prevent competition, it's also inflation - fake money, which sets interest rates at levels that are unaffordable by ANY business. The natural rate of interest at this point probably crossed into triple digits already, the only entity capable of getting credit is government, so it crowded out all investment and the only way that gov't can still get credit is by printing the money that is used to provide this credit.
Then this money is laundered through a system of banks and Treasury bond sales.
Wow you are dense. Private property right is a right of the individual not to have his property seized by the government without going through the lawful procedures that are established in the Constitution for such occasions.
An individual trying to steal from you or kill you or engage in some other act of violence against you is not in violation of your rights, because the concept of a 'right' does not exist on individual level, the right is the limit that the government cannot step over, that's when the concept of rights is established.
For violent acts against people we do decide to punish people, but that punishment is not in response to a 'right violation', it is only response to violence with the rules defining that one person cannot for example kill another without repercussions.
Again: right is a limit to government abusing you in ways that are unauthorised to the government, there is no other principle by which a right can be defined. The very principle by which a right is defined is derived from the understanding that under a totalitarian system, a monarchy or any other system where people are NOT in fact equal under the law is not a good system. The system that people do prefer (supposedly) is the one where people ARE equal under the law. Equality under the law requires that government has limits to what it can do to any specific individual, because one individual can be above another individual by law, then there can be no limits as to what government can do to an individual.
Rights are limits that are not supposed to be crossed by government authority.
Another individual that is not a government employee hurting you is not a violation of any rights of yours, it's a violation of criminal code, that's it.