Subject:
|
Re: It IS about Taxation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:10:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
246 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In any instance of distribution of my wealth, if I have >given permission, it is not theft. But I think that anyone who wants my
> wealth should ask, rather than seize.
Can it not be argued that by participating in the monetary system deployed
by a government (in accordance, in the US, with the Constitution) a tax is
simply a "service charge" for using goverment property (money)? That is, if
you don't want to pay tax, don't trade in the coin of the realm. If you use
money as distributed by the Fed, tax is a corresponding duty for that use.
I'm just asking--this isn't necessarily my view, but I'm curious about its
validity as an argument. If this is plowed ground, let me know.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
| (...) Yes it can be so argued... (and yes, it's a bit plowed but worth reexamination) A few points to consider: - While the constitution speaks of coinage, it does not reserve coinage as a (federal OR state) government monopoly. - Coinage (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
| (...) That would be a reasonable argument if: 1. The IRS didn't try and get it's fingers into deals done without the use of the coin of the realm (they have in fact gone after barter exchanges, just try that on a big scale and find out what happens (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
