"That's What Lysander Spooner Preached."

David Weigel | June 28, 2007

Earlier in the week it was reported that Ron Paul praised Ed and Elaine Brown, the tax evaders holed up in their New Hampshire home and refusing to meet the authorities. Perfect: A reason for Fox News' Neil Cavuto to book Paul and feebly ask him why he hates taxes so much.

Paul points out that he opposes the IRS and income tax. Cavuto asks: "So you're against taxes?" No, Paul says. He's against the income tax. Cavuto: "I want to stick on message here."

It's a little odd to hear Cavuto work over a Republican who want to abolish the current tax code. Contrast this with Chris Wallace interviewing Mike Huckabee about the Fair Tax, the implementation of which would mean the end of the IRS. Which candidate is getting grilled by the reporter, and which one's getting bored questions in the pursuit of a "gotcha"?

Comments

|6.28.07 @ 9:36AM|#

Oooh! Oooh! I know this one!

The guy praising a loonie who's provoking a confrontation with the feds gets the hard questions, and the guy putting forth a wonkish goo goo plan to reform the tax code gets the policy questions.

|6.28.07 @ 9:42AM|#

The AP story was completely off-base. Ron Paul was never specifically defending Ed and Elaine Brown. He was defending tax protesters in general.

Here is the original interview.

|6.28.07 @ 9:45AM|#

It's the pornographer that we have to defend when we defend free speech. Defending the fringe protects us all.

I agree these people are loons.

Full disclosure: I like naked women.

Fluffy|6.28.07 @ 9:48AM|#

So anyone who provokes a confrontation with the feds is a "loonie"?

John Brown provoked a confrontation with the feds. He was also right.

Unless you believe in the infallibility of the federal government, it's possible to confront the government and be in the right.

I don't think the Browns are in the right, actually. If they acknowledged that the income tax is legal, but declared it immoral and resisted it on that basis, I'd be more inclined to support them than I am when they pull the "it wasn't properly ratified" nonsense.

But that's not really the issue.

|6.28.07 @ 9:49AM|#

Cavuto is a non-factor.

I suppose by hard questions, joe, you mean disingenuous.

|6.28.07 @ 9:51AM|#

What do y'all expect from Cavuto? Hes still got egg on his face from this little treasure he wrote near Mission Accomplished Day.

|6.28.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Fluffy,

John Brown was both right, and a loonie.

He and his people slaughtered an entire family - women and kids, too.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to fight the law, do it court, or in the media. Trying to provoke a Ruby Ridge seige is lunacy.

|6.28.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Jim Bob,

Yes, disingenuous, unfair, and misleading.

My bad there, I should not have phrased it in a way that suggested I thought Cavuto was doing a good job.

|6.28.07 @ 9:58AM|#

joe,

Ah, I understand.

sarcasmo|6.28.07 @ 9:58AM|#

What I loved was how Fox was able to do misleading promos OVER AND OVER before their endless commercial breaks, and then Dr. Paul finally has to say "No..." -- presumably to less of an audience than that for the misleading Fox promos. But there's no antilibertarian mediabias, oh no! Sure....And water's not wet, either.
JMR

|6.28.07 @ 9:59AM|#

General question for H&R readers: why is it that Americans on one hand constantly complain about the current tax situation but there at least in my lifetime has never been a serious movement towards reform?

|6.28.07 @ 10:02AM|#

Cesar,

That piece was hilarious. He sounds every bit the fawning toady he is.

sarcasmo|6.28.07 @ 10:03AM|#

What form could a "serious movement" take? And MB, please don't confuse people with the facts, that's not nice -- we need imaginative political assumptions instead for Fox to accomplish its opinion-not-news mission.
JMR

|6.28.07 @ 10:04AM|#

joe,

Let's not get Ruby Ridge into this, becaue that was a case where federal marshalls were absolutely in the wrong and cost people their lives due to their actions.

Edward|6.28.07 @ 10:06AM|#

Oh, woe, the persecution that libertarians suffer! Where is the respect? Aiiiii! Aiiiii!

|6.28.07 @ 10:06AM|#

RP still has some of that Robert Downey show fire. I like it.

Jack|6.28.07 @ 10:07AM|#

Oh man Cavuto totally nailed him on not liking taxes. next thing you know they're going to in him down on his controversial "I like puppies" stance

|6.28.07 @ 10:07AM|#

Dan T.-

I think Mencken had a good answer:

'People in the mass soon grow used to anything, including even being swindled.'

dhex|6.28.07 @ 10:08AM|#

that was a weird interview. almost seemed like dude was way disinterested when interviewing him.

|6.28.07 @ 10:08AM|#

Dan,

To most people, taxes are a small evil and they're kept under the threshold of pain and indeed, with most payroll taxes coming directly from the employer, people just don't see the effect. Only small business types that have to file taxes and pay the government after they've seen their earnings understand really how much they're losing.

Besides, I think the majority of the population accepts the fact that government is their nanny and needs their money for their own good.

|6.28.07 @ 10:11AM|#

Dan T -
because there are multiple camps of people complaining about taxes. You have the camp of people who think that they are paying too much in taxes and that tax rates should be cut across the board and that government programs should be eliminated. And then you have the camp that thinks that THEY are paying too much in taxes, and that someone else should pay more so they don't have to pay as much.

kohlrabi|6.28.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Dan T,

There are as many different complaints as there are Americans. Some complain for less tax. Some for more tax on business. Some for more tax on alcohol. Some for less tax on business. Some for more tax on gas. Some for less tax on gas. Etc.


Here's my question: For all the complaints about the Iraq War, why haven't we resolved it? Same thing. Everyone's got a unique complaint.

kohlrabi|6.28.07 @ 10:13AM|#

Reinmoose,

Ya beat me! Good answer.

SugarFree|6.28.07 @ 10:14AM|#

1. Income tax
Since you never get the money they take from you, then you don't feel the loss of it as keenly. Abolish withholding, move tax day to November 1st, and make everybody write a check for the full amount.

2. Taxes = charity
When I strip away everything else from people who argue with me about economic libertarianism, this is often the core of their assertion. Taxes are not charity. The government is there to enforce your rights, not right every wrong.

3. Competing Totalitarianisms
Taxes are used by both major parties as a stick to beat people they don't like. You don't throw away your stick.

4. Government as Leviathan
Most people think that the growth of government is the health of the state.

Those are my favorite. I'm sure there are more.

|6.28.07 @ 10:17AM|#

One of my favorite quotes about payroll tax comes from Chris Rock. He said the way they show what you would have made before taxes along with what you actually made is like having a really hot chick take off her bra, and then asking you "What the fuck are you looking at?"

rho|6.28.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Whenever somebody says, "So, what you're saying is...", they are about to deliberately misrepresent somebody's position.

Cavuto apparently got interviewing lessons from Hannity. Chump-o-trons, both of them.

Fluffy|6.28.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Joe -

I agree that those are the preferable ways to deal with a grievance - at least, in situations where you have a fair chance of your grievance being heard.

But it's not the "tax resistance" part of what the Browns are doing that's wrong. It's the "threaten to shoot people" part of what they're doing. If you were a person who thought the tax code was correct, and were able to organize, say, ten million people to refuse to send in their returns, that too would be "provoking a confrontation", and it wouldn't fall into any of your categories - but it would be an appropriate use of civil disobedience.

|6.28.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Thanks for the answers, guys.

Based on those, could we then conclude that the current tax system represents the best possible compromise between the differing views of how taxes should be levied and spent? I guess each of us would prefer to pay fewer taxes, but few of us are so convinced that the tax code is blatantly unfair that we're pulling the kind of stunt that the Browns are doing.

|6.28.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Jeez, this dimwit makes Sean Hannity sound like Dick Cavett. Where does Fox find these guys?

steveintheknow|6.28.07 @ 10:25AM|#

I guess each of us would prefer to pay fewer taxes, but few of us are so convinced that the tax code is blatantly unfair that we're pulling the kind of stunt that the Browns are doing.

Well, Dan, I would say that the tax code could never be that bad for most of us. I would assume that most "sane" people would opt for moving before getting shot or sent to prison.

Anyway thats just me.

Oh, and the tax code still sucks.

|6.28.07 @ 10:27AM|#

Dan,

Most people worry about their next payment, so they rarely focus on the ideological wrongness of what's being done to them. There's no reason to think income tax is necessary unless you just want to punish someone else for being productive.

Fluffy|6.28.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Dan -

I see your point here, but I think the unintended consequence of that argument is to encourage actions like that of the Browns.

In effect, you're saying "I'll regard the tax code as a fair compromise until I see lots of violent resistance."

Cue associates of the Browns to say, "...Well, if only violence will convince you that we're serious..."

|6.28.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Fluffy,

Fair enough. By "confrontation," I was refering to the possibility of a seige, exchange of shots, and the whole tragic course of events we've seen before.

highnumber|6.28.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Based on those [answers], could we then conclude that the current tax system represents the best possible compromise between the differing views of how taxes should be levied and spent?

So what does that mean when the Dems raise taxes, er, repeal Bush's tax cuts?

|6.28.07 @ 10:34AM|#

No, Dan T., we can only conclude that it represents a compromise that is good enough to get passed by people who know that they have to get something passed.

|6.28.07 @ 10:35AM|#

So what does that mean when the Dems raise taxes, er, repeal Bush's tax cuts?

It means we can balance the budget, fully fund NCLB, give everyone the best healthcare in the world for free, free college for everyone, and we all get a free lifetime supply of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale! YAAY!

*goes to DailyKos*

|6.28.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Many people, who are employees, with one job (a segment of the population of which I am not a member), think of tax time as a big, wonderful Christmas Club. Every spring, their wonderful friends at the Internal Revenue Service cut them a handsome check with which to buy themselves a present.

The power to control the tax code is concentrated in the hands of people who benefit from its reach and complexity.

|6.28.07 @ 10:39AM|#

Based on those [answers], could we then conclude that the current tax system represents the best possible compromise between the differing views of how taxes should be levied and spent?

I understand your reasoning here, but I don't see it that way. The solution I would say about the best way to levy taxes woule be to build a voluntary system where those that wished to pay taxes could do so in whatever amount they saw fit, and those that didn't, wouldn't. The system would really more closely resemble private charity. In this way, you'd actually be allowing each person to choose how their money was spent, on whom, and in what amounts. This would take care of the ethical issue of whether the majority had the authority to take my money (a share of my time/productivity) to spend on something I objected to. I know it's simplistic, but that's the angle I see it from.

kohlrabi|6.28.07 @ 10:47AM|#

Dan T,

You could say that. You could, to follow my earlier analogy, also say that the Iraq War Policy represents the best compromise of people with differing views.

You could say that, but it isn't accurate.

|6.28.07 @ 10:47AM|#

and we all get a free lifetime supply of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale! YAAY!

Oh man, I'm in.

|6.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#

I only just recently saw this Cavuto nitwit for the first time recently while I was waiting in line at a paint store.
There was a discussion involving that new FDA-approved weight-loss drug. Cavuto talked respectfully with some total hack about how wonderful it was, then turned around and berated an actual fitness-instructor as she explained that the drug didn't promise more than 5-10 pounds of weight loss over 6 months with the potential of causing uncontrollable diarrhea the entire time. Hardly, an uncredible argument, the warning is right there on the label, but it sent Cavuto into a fit.

Major tool.

|6.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#

The solution I would say about the best way to levy taxes woule be to build a voluntary system where those that wished to pay taxes could do so in whatever amount they saw fit, and those that didn't, wouldn't.

The Free Rider problem will always doom that line of reasoning from being accepted by the general public.

It certainly dooms it for me.

Randolph Carter|6.28.07 @ 10:49AM|#

I saw this interview on TV, when Cavuto said "I want to stick on message here" I was thinking, whose message?

|6.28.07 @ 10:53AM|#

So what does that mean when the Dems raise taxes, er, repeal Bush's tax cuts?

Oh, man, it would be the 90s all over again!

Run away! Run away!!!!

|6.28.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Jeez, this dimwit makes Sean Hannity sound like Dick Cavett. Where does Fox find these guys?


Stop posting Daze wins the thread!

|6.28.07 @ 10:56AM|#

The Free Rider problem will always doom that line of reasoning from being accepted by the general public.

It certainly dooms it for me.

You don't donate to private charity? Because that's really all it is.

|6.28.07 @ 10:56AM|#

um,,before 1913 there was no income tax. Do the research. The 16th ammendment was passed in a lame duck session of congress. It has never been ratified. US Supreme court ruled the 16th gave no new tax power to the Goverment.

The Federal Reserve was also conceived at this time. It's no more federal then Federal Express.

Income tax is unconstitutional. When I was in the Army I swore an oath to protect it and to combat anything set out to destroy it. The constitution is the law of the land, PERIOD. Anything that goes against it is ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL!

|6.28.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Ron Paul has been pretty consistent in supporting civil disobedience from the income tax laws, although as far as I can tell he has never acted on his beliefs. 25 years or so ago, he openly supported an organized campaign among Michigan auto workers to claim 100+ exemptions on their W-9's to reduce the withholding on their paychecks to zero. Congress promptly changed the laws to prevent this tactic (surprise, surprise). The interesting question about Paul is whether he is paying income taxes himself. If so, I wonder how he can justify encouraging others to run the risk of going to jail in support of his beliefs?

|6.28.07 @ 11:02AM|#

You don't donate to private charity? Because that's really all it is.

I don't see the relationship.

D.A. Ridgely|6.28.07 @ 11:10AM|#

MP, both the beneficiaries of charities (who, typically don't themselves contribute) and the public at large (positive externalities of good works) are free riders enjoying the benefits of charitable contributions. That doesn't stop people from donating to charity.

SugarFree|6.28.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Ron,

You don't have to smoke pot to think that smoking pot shouldn't be a crime. I think civil disobedience is the best way to overturn these laws. Do I have to light up in the street in order not to be a hypocrite?

By the way, let's all remember these two guys the next time a troll pops up and suggests that force is never employed to collect taxes.

|6.28.07 @ 11:16AM|#

MP, both the beneficiaries of charities (who, typically don't themselves contribute) and the public at large (positive externalities of good works) are free riders enjoying the benefits of charitable contributions. That doesn't stop people from donating to charity.

The "public at large" externality for charitable donations is relatively minor. Since we're talking about taxation in libertopia, we should be framing the debate under the assumption that we have a minarchy. In that context, the taxation expenditure benefits to the "public at large" is no longer simply an externality, since the expenditure is directly targeting the public (via services provided).

I don't see that as being an equivalent free rider problem to charity. In fact, I don't even see a free rider problem with charity because the "public at large" benefit is so small.

|6.28.07 @ 11:22AM|#

The interesting question about Paul is whether he is paying income taxes himself. If so, I wonder how he can justify encouraging others to run the risk of going to jail in support of his beliefs?

Is he encouraging others, or merely supporting their decisions when others decide to protest. I think there is quite a bit of difference.

There are lots of things that, while I wouldn't recommend them, I would like to see others try/succeed if they wish, that I might not be willing to risk myself.

|6.28.07 @ 11:32AM|#

People still pay taxes for the same reason people pay the neighborhood bag man.

1) They have no authority to appeal to.

2) Even though its a healthy cut that hurts your bottom line, its not enough to make it worth risking what you do have and health to fight it.

Its a false dilemma. Either you pay a "smaller" portion of what you make or you risk everything you DO have, and WILL have to not pay. Either way you are fucked.

I have a great deal of respect for the people who are tax protesters but its just not worth the risk for me to do it...

|6.28.07 @ 11:35AM|#

People still pay taxes for the same reason people pay the neighborhood bag man.

1) They have no authority to appeal to.

2) Even though its a healthy cut that hurts your bottom line, its not enough to make it worth risking what you do have and health to fight it.

Its a false dilemma. Either you pay a "smaller" portion of what you make or you risk everything you DO have, and WILL have to not pay. Either way you are fucked.

I have a great deal of respect for the people who are tax protesters but its just not worth the risk for me to do it...

But you could also say that people pay taxes for the same reason they pay the resturant after they eat, or for the same reason they pay their dues at the golf club.

|6.28.07 @ 11:38AM|#

If we don't want to use income tax to raise the funds for the government, how do we plan to do it?

Of course, we could always go to a capital tax.....

(And when you tax-resisters call on all the candidates to cut that big-behemoth called the Defense budget and your future social security payments, then I'll believe you're really willing to put your mouth where your money is. Otherwise I have to interpret it simply as bitching because your own ox is getting gored....)

|6.28.07 @ 11:40AM|#

But Dan,

Why not just pay the federal government direct for whatever services you require.....

|6.28.07 @ 11:41AM|#

But you could also say that people pay taxes for the same reason they pay the resturant after they eat, or for the same reason they pay their dues at the golf club.

Except they don't typically feel like they are getting screwed by the restaurant or gold club.

|6.28.07 @ 11:42AM|#

SugarFree and Chicago Tom: Cheerleading for civil disobedience while not doing so yourself isn't hypocritical--it's just gutless, and substantially undermines the credibility of your support for it. The issue of your opposition to the income tax is a separate question. There are lots of ways to oppose the income tax, but if you are going to do so outside of our system of laws then you are threatening much more than the income tax.

dhex|6.28.07 @ 11:42AM|#

uh the big story is that ron paul namechecked lysander spooner on fox news. that's like finding a gold bar in your box of wheatabix.

Derrick|6.28.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Ron Paul has really good days, when he explains his positions with crystal clarity and makes amazing sense. He also has bad days, when his answers are convoluted, ambiguous, and difficult to parse. Has anyone else noticed that?

|6.28.07 @ 11:45AM|#

Except they don't typically feel like they are getting screwed by the restaurant or gold club.

True, but that's probably because the benefits of paying for those are much more immediate and direct.

If you pay $10,000 a year in income tax, it's a little more difficult to see for sure what you're getting for that money - although your continued presense in the USA pretty much shows that you consider the price of living here to be worth the benefits.

|6.28.07 @ 11:50AM|#

I pay taxes for the same reason I didn't go on Unemployment when I got canned two years ago:

Because I don't want to feel like a parasite.

|6.28.07 @ 11:55AM|#

newsflash,

joe pays taxes so he can not utilize the programs his taxes go to....

|6.28.07 @ 12:00PM|#

# Lost_In_Translation | June 28, 2007, 10:08am | #
# To most people, taxes are a small evil
# and they're kept under the threshold
# of pain and indeed, with most payroll
# taxes coming directly from the employer,
# people just don't see the effect. Only
# small business types that have to file
# taxes and pay the government after
# they've seen their earnings understand
# really how much they're losing.

I'm not so sure. Since more and more families now need two incomes to make ends meet at whatever level of lifestyle they have adopted or aspire to, more and more families are pushing their aggregate income to the levels where withholding calculations break down: they end up owing the tax man. If that happens more than a couple of times, tax software starts telling you that you have to make additional tax payments every quarter. Writing out a big check to the IRS after reading the news in the papers about how the government is squandering the money can't help but make anyone angry, and I suspect that the number of people in that situation is growing all the time. It isn't just the rich, the lucky, or the self-employed who have to go through the 1040-ES exercise anymore.

dhex as conservatarian gadfly|6.28.07 @ 12:03PM|#

"I pay taxes for the same reason I didn't go on Unemployment when I got canned two years ago:

Because I don't want to feel like a parasite."

JOE JUST CALLED LAID-OFF WORKERS PARASITES

(thank you i'll be here all night. try the veal!)

The Wine Commonsewer|6.28.07 @ 12:04PM|#

The guy praising a loonie who's provoking a confrontation with the feds gets the hard questions

Joe, too bad you didn't watch the video.

|6.28.07 @ 12:08PM|#

# joe | June 28, 2007, 11:50am | #
# I pay taxes for the same reason I didn't go
# on Unemployment when I got canned two
# years ago:

# Because I don't want to feel like a parasite.

It's admirable that you don't want to feel like a politician.

But seriously, unemployment insurance is cast as insurance, not welfare. You and your employer allegedly pay into these funds, so why not take the benefit of the insurance you have been paying for (however coerced you may have been to do so)? On the other hand, when the federal government authorizes billions for EXTENSION of unemployment payments, there's no pretending that such funding isn't coming out of everyone's pockets through the normal tax channels. Taking that money would be taking a form of welfare, I agree.

I have never looked into it, but I wonder if there is any kind of private-sector unemployment insurance -- true insurance? The "pay your credit card bill if you're laid up" plans that credit card companies often offer seem to represent at least a flavor of such insurance, but I wonder if there is anything more comprehensive for Joe and those who would need help after being laid off but don't want to feel like parasites? Unions have strike funds; do they have layoff funds? Maybe just keeping a savings account would be a lot less hassle, though, if one can manage it in these times...

dhex|6.28.07 @ 12:09PM|#

yeah paul wasn't bad but he wasn't on his game like he has been. he didn't take any real time to differentiate very clearly the difference between income taxes and other taxes.

the best thing about income taxes is that all of a sudden everyone gets all "fuck the government" and it feels nice to be loved, you know?

|6.28.07 @ 12:15PM|#

L_I_T,

No, I called laid off workers who have other options but choose to go on unemployment parasites. If I was really in need, I would have signed up.

And, FWIW, I use lots of programs that my taxes go to. I drive down the street, the cops patrol my neighborhood, the street lights come on, yadda yadda yadda. I just don't exploit them in bad faith for my own benefit.

Mr. Merritt,

Intellectually, I know that, but it still didn't feel right.

|6.28.07 @ 12:35PM|#

what Lysander Spooner said:

the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

No Treason:III

|6.28.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Joe - The services you mention are mostly driven by state, local or sales taxes. If you want to talk about the services you get in exchange for federal income taxes, try these:
1) You get to invade and occupy Iraq!
2) You're essentially a shareholder in Haliburton, albeit a shareholder with no voting rights who doesn't get paid dividends and is not entitled to getting anything out of the company, like your investment.
3) When you see a show on History or Discovery channels showing weapons that the US military developed but never used, those are yours! Thanks!
4) You get to watch anti-drug ads on TV.
5) You get to pay taxes to your local schools to fund the NCLB mandates that DC bureaucrats dreamed up, while sitting in posh DC office suites that you paid for.

Anybody else? I'm getting depressed.

mrk|6.28.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Dan T

Many of us hate Michael Bolton, that doesn't mean we get together and try to have his albums banned from music stores. Nevertheless, much like the income tax, his music is just a BAD idea.

|6.28.07 @ 1:13PM|#

"The 16th ammendment was passed in a lame duck session of congress. It has never been ratified."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Forty two states ratified the amendment. Forty two. That's six more than the required thirty six!

Arguments that this state or the other didn't "really" ratify it are specious. One such argument even claims that Ohio wasn't a state until 1952!

Those people who argue that it wasn't ratified WANT THE IRS! That is the REAL conspiracy! They want to distract you from real evil that is the IRS and the tax code! They want you tilting at imaginary windmills. They would rather have you continue paying taxes, than to admit they are wrong.

Their core argument is that the income tax is 100% moral, it just needs to get some i's dotted on the ratification form. Disgusting.

ed|6.28.07 @ 1:16PM|#

I collected unemployment for the first and only time in my life a few years ago and I must say it was awesome! Sleeping late, baloney sandwiches, cheap beer and lazy afternoons by the pool...what's not to like? And yes, since you pay into it (albeit indirectly) you have a right to recoup part of your "investment." It was the Summer of George. Good times.

|6.28.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Dan T,

You can stop paying dues to the Golf club if they let the greens get burned out and only cut the rough once a year. And they won't show up at your house and detain you.

At a restaurant if the meal shows up an hour late and is cold you can leave without paying.

Actually I kind of like the restaurant idea. How popular do you think the restaurant would be if everyone got the same meal but the price depended on how much you made, and how good of a tax lawyer you could afford.

Waiter: "You owe 18.50 for your hamburger sir."

Customer: "But Jim here had the same thing, and his was only 14.50."

Waiter: "Well he owns a house and has two kids. So we give him a discount."

|6.28.07 @ 1:17PM|#

mike,

If my city and state eliminated all sales and property taxes and replaced them with income taxes, while the feds eliminated the income tax and replaced it with sales and property taxes, my point would be exactly the same.

The utility of federal programs is one point. The validity of different taxation schemes is another. The morality of paying taxes in general is yet a third.

I don't see what your comment is meant to accomplish.

|6.28.07 @ 1:19PM|#

/ watches Itchy and Scratchy replacement cartoon Worker and Parasite

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!?

|6.28.07 @ 1:27PM|#

"although your continued presense in the USA pretty much shows that you consider the price of living here to be worth the benefits."

Another false dilemma.

There are benefits for us all to live where we do that have NOTHING to do with taxes.

Proximity to friends and family, the lack of the ability to communicate in another language are two things that spring to mind.

|6.28.07 @ 1:37PM|#

If you pay $10,000 a year in income tax, it's a little more difficult to see for sure what you're getting for that money

A little more? ;)

Randolph Carter|6.28.07 @ 2:03PM|#

Ron Paul has really good days, when he explains his positions with crystal clarity and makes amazing sense. He also has bad days, when his answers are convoluted, ambiguous, and difficult to parse. Has anyone else noticed that?

The secret is that there are two Ron Pauls! That's why he can do that trick where he throws his hat, walks in to the door frame, and teleports out of the other door.

*scrubs bad movie from memory*

|6.28.07 @ 4:11PM|#

AP had to retract their statement. Ron had and still has no idea who the Browns are and does not support them if they are claiming violence.

To think otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

The cub reporter who started this foolishness that was embellished by the AP also had to print a retraction.

The only people who are loonies here are Katz the reporter and the AP who has another article out that is totally libelous -- something about crashing a party. Ron is having a rally on the 30th for his supporters, and he is paying for the food and venue so he is not crashing anything.

The AP should be, as usual, IGNORED.

Derrick|6.28.07 @ 8:51PM|#

I don't find the AP so bad. In this case, It sounds to me as though the reporter didn't quite understand the libertarian nuances of Paul's position. To tell the truth, after viewing the clip above I'm still not sure I do.

libertreee|6.28.07 @ 9:21PM|#

...I'm still not sure I do [understand}Paul's position. Derrick

Congressman Paul has been very sympathetic to the tax honesty movement. Unlike others, who (Grassley, for one) who have been scared off.

He appears in Aaron Russo's anti IRS, anti Fed documentary, "From Freedom to Fascism".

The tax honesty people, also called "Patriots" have various theories about the income tax. The reason more than one theory can exist is because the income tax law is so damn full of legalise, terms of art, etc that few can really look at it and see how it could indeed be misapplied. It is almost like the blind men examining the elephant, one says "This animal is like a rope" holding the tail, another strokes the ear and says it is like a fan, etc.

I tried to explain why the income tax as it is commonly understood is a fraud, but my explanation may not have been that clear either. It is hard to get arguments that could and have filled a legal brief of a hundred pages or more into a blog thread.

Anyway, Ron is endorsing those who oppose the income tax on legal grounds, decrying the law that dates from Reconstruction that says you have to pay first and litigate later, and denounces violence as a weapon against the IRS.

Not bad, in my opinion.

Cavullo is an ass, in my opinion.

|6.28.07 @ 9:56PM|#

The more I see Ron Paul the more I like him.