Coming Soon!

Coming Soon!
What Social Animals Owe to Each Other

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

No Taxation Without Representation in Court!

The July 4th holiday readily brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.” A major reason for the Americans’ wish to be independent from the British empire was their belief that people should have a say in the tax policies imposed on them.

Well, we got representation — and a whole lot more taxes too. Is representation the taxpayers’ only recourse? Perhaps the courts could provide another form of recourse. If the government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution, then shouldn’t taxpayers be able to sue the government when their money is used improperly?

Alas, that’s not how the courts see it.

The rest of my op-ed, "No Taxation Without Representation in Court!" is at The Future of Freedom website.


Thomas Bell said...

"Taxation without representation" is answered in the Petition Clause in the 1st Amendment. However, the government does not have to listen to the People's petitions, and Bob Schulz will lose every time. Taking with the Murphy case, the People have no choice but to either give up and live in tyranny, or fight, and possibly die. I hope it doesn't come down to this, but I refuse to accept option #1 (i.e., Patrick Henry).

Anonymous said...

I will be RIGHT BEHIND YOU, Thomas, every step of the way!


Sheldon Richman said...

"Fight" has many meanings. What is yours, Thomas?

Thomas Bell said...

I "fight" for defense only. However, if the government wants to oppress me (take your pick), like I said, I (and James) refuse to accept #1.

Unknown said...

Thomas, while I agree with your menu of options, I must clarify my response above. It was tongue-in-cheek, which is hard to pull off in type.

In being "right behind you" you will be my human shield. Sorry for the gross metaphor.

Thomas Bell said...

I understand now. :) Let me see; if I live (in freedom), you will live like me too. But if I die, you'll have a choice to make: live in tyranny, or die yourself. If it was me, I will choose the latter. From your last comment, the only benefit you will have is to live a little longer. But I (or we) hope it doesn't come to this.

Anonymous said...

I completely sympathize, Thomas. Believe me, it causes me great internal strife to adhere to libertarian/anarchist beliefs while living the life of a family man within the State. I'm not ready for lifestyle anarchism yet. I have a family that I am not only obliged to, but that I love.

It's a weird road to travel, full of potholes of cynicism, billboards of irony and the stop-and-go traffic of illogic.

And I must give credit where it is due -- the host of this here blog is one of the persons most responsible for my taking the red pill.

Or is the blue pill? Never could remember that one.

So, with all due respect to Mssrs. Henry and Bell, if it is a choice between liberty or tyranny, for the time being at least, I must live as a coward, at least until the water gets too hot.

Someone be sure to let me know when that is.

Sheldon Richman said...

I'm not sure what lifestyle anarchism is, but I know it's not limited to either a jail cell or the grave. (Perhaps under some extreme circumstances it would be.) Anarchism is a state of mind and a commitment to do what one can to free oneself and one's fellow human beings. Futile gestures and forsaking one's family don't seem to be part of that.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Sheldon. Like a navigator using Polaris as a guide without ever expecting to reach Polaris.

You want to know what lifestyle anarchism is? Driving down the street one day, I noticed a bum pushing a cart of his belongings. My wife looked over at him and remarked, "There goes an anarchist." That shut me up in a heartbeat.