I was robbed today. Thousands of dollars, all of which I had earned, was transferred from my ownership to another’s because I did not feel comfortable looking down the barrel of a gun. Since no guns were present at the time of the transfer, and the exchange took place quietly, perhaps extortion is a more apropos term than robbery. Whatever the case, I did not wish to part with this money, and I did so only under duress.
Here’s how it happened. The thugs had made it clear that we had only two weeks left. If we did not pay up in two weeks, then the consequences would be severe. I would be robbed of more money and could very well be kidnapped and harmed if I dared to defend my property. Jennie and I talked it over. We knew that the police would be of no help. Indeed, they are accomplices and receive a nice cut from the crooks for allowing this to happen. While I am the owner of three firearms and have access to many more, we quickly dismissed the idea of defending ourselves. Moving away was not an option either. Every solution other than simply handing over the money would have cost us more, so we decided to choose our lives over our money.
I scheduled the exchange for 3 P.M. this afternoon. Natalie was napping, so we had to wake her up. When she complained, I explained that if we didn’t give over the money soon, then we could lose everything, and she may never see me again. She asked me why we wouldn’t call 911. I told her that they wouldn’t help. That’s when Jennie told me to stop talking about it.
Theft is defined as “the act or instance of stealing; larceny.” To steal is defined as “To take (the property of another) without right or permission.” In its most frightening form, it’s called robbery, which is defined as “larceny by threat of violence.” However, the common expression for what happened to us that we paid our income taxes.
Supposedly, we live in a country governed by the consent of the governed. A social contract exists, through which the people volunteer to cede certain powers (e.g. my power to harm others) in exchange for the protection of a government (e.g. the government will make sure that no one harms me). In essence, I agree to follow the laws, and the government agrees to enact and enforce laws designed to protect my life, liberty, and property. Most people accept this as the only “good” form of government.
But no such contract exists. I certainly did not sign it, so how can I be legally forced to obey a contract that I never signed? How am I governed by my consent if I have never consented to be so governed? How do the “representatives” at the local, state, and federal levels “represent” me if I did not vote for them?
The answer to all of these, in one form or another, is that I am forced to consent. This is an oxymoron. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc defines consent as “compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding.”
There is nothing voluntary about the income tax. It was not a voluntary agreement between me and the state and federal governments. We did not negotiate the rate of taxation, nor did we discuss the application the funds once surrendered. By definition, consent requires that the “acquiescence” occur while one “is not under duress or coercion,” but that’s exactly how the IRS collects the tax: by threatening me with fines, the seizure of my home, possible imprisonment, and even death (should I dare to defend my property).
This means that I am not governed by consent. I am governed by “dominance through threat of punishment and violence” (which, consequently, is a definition for tyranny).
While I might be free-er than I could be, only a fool or a liar would dare suggest that I am free, that my life, liberty, and property are my own and to be dispensed according to my own discretion.
Most people will criticize my point of view with something akin to “there is no better way.” This is nonsense. I ask only to be asked. If the local government or a private company offers me, say, a fire department, I, as a homeowner, will gladly subscribe. So what if I don’t? Then I leave myself open to the loss of my home. Should such an arrangement actually be made in such a way, then my homeowners insurance would surely require it, so I would buy into the fire department. This is better than the simple coercion of taxation, for I have consented to it. I bought a home via a mortgage. The mortgage company, to protect its investment, requires that I buy homeowners insurance. Whichever homeowner’s insurance company I patronize requires me to invest in a fire-protection company. If I don’t wish to do so, then I don’t apply for a mortgage. I do no jail time. If I cease paying my fire-protection dues, then I am in breach of a contract that I signed, and may lose my insurance policy and thus may lose my home to the mortgage company or be obliged to pay all of the outstanding balance on my mortgage (a lot depends on the language in the contract).
Some might reply that my desire to own a home forces me to secure a mortgage, which in turn forces me to have insurance, which in turn forces me to pay for fire-protection. This is not an accurate summation. I only need a mortgage for my home because I do not have the money to put down to buy my house outright. A mortgage, then, is someone else’s money. This means that the mortgage company has the right to determine to whom and under which conditions they will loan its money. I do not have the right to dictate these terms, since it is not my money. My rights have not been violated. Perhaps my preferences have been superceded, but my preferences are not equal to my rights. Consider, I would prefer to drive a Ferrari instead of a Chevy. That I could not afford the Ferrari and had to settle for the Chevy was not unjust.
What I mean, by all of this, is that the income-tax is unjust. It exposes the tyrannical soul of even a less-malevolent government, such as that in control of the United States. Should my idea of consent be applied, the government knows that it would only receive funds to match some of its wants and needs. This would limit its powers. It would find itself unable to wage unjust wars and unable to curry favor with special interest groups by redistributing wealth from those who produce it to those who simply wish to consume it. In essence, the income-tax proves that ours is a government not unlike those we have been taught to abhor. It is the instrument of violence and theft. No consent is required. Hell, they don’t even ask for it to at least feign the pretense of consent.
For all of the thousands of dollars extorted from me on this day, I find myself asking what I get out of it. Perhaps, if I sit here long enough, I’ll come up with something.
No comments:
Post a Comment