There is no law which will restrain a legislative branch that is set on robbing you blind. And perhaps more importantly, there are no words that any legislature, anywhere, ever, can put on paper or parchment, in order to legitimize theft. All taxes are immoral. All taxes are theft. Pretending that there’s a “legal” way to go about it is conceding defeat.
Responding to “Take the Red Pill,” Jeff Molby comments:
The problem with this type of argument is that the battle has already been lost. Even if you could conclusively prove that the income tax is unconstitutional, what good would it do? The populace wants a government that spends $3+ trillion per year. They’re not even willing to cut expenditures enough to balance the budget, so they’re damn sure not going to let one of the major sources of “revenue” disappear. It would take them less than a week to pass and ratify an amendment that completely undermines your legal victory.
I’ve been mulling over the same idea, more or less, ever since I was first introduced to this sort of tax resistance literature.
Towards this conclusion, Jeff makes a very good point: the “Red Pill” legal or constitutional argument against taxes is a red herring.
If it’s true, haven’t people used this defense successfully? If so, where are their stories. I would expect someone like Butler to have cited at least one case that turned out favorably.
And if it’s true, like Jeff Molby says, the criminals in Congress need only amend the code to close the “loopholes”.
So, if all of this constitutional legal mumbo-jumbo is true, why haven’t they closed these “loopholes”? At the most, they would ultimately have to ratify a constitutional amendment authorizing taxes. Anyone think this wouldn’t happen if they needed it to happen?
There is at least one reason why the government could not ratify an amendment like this: It may make taxes “legal” and proper from a point in time forward but may not attach retroactively. From which the necessary implication is: every dollar of taxes that the government had hitherto taken from anyone, anywhere, ever was in-fact illegally taken.
Fortunately, they don’t need an amendment because everyone has been sufficiently beaten or threatened in to submission.
One might infer from Butler’s essay, that the code/tax laws as currently written do not violate the highest law of the land — that instead they are only interpreted and enforced in such a manner (primarily by omission and deception). But it’s not “constitutional” and it’s not legal if it’s being applied in a manner that is demonstrably at odds with the letter of the law, and any law which violates the principles of justice is itself unfit.
The idea that the whole IRS/taxation system works — that it’s this massive conspiracy of omission — because the code is constitutional, and that landmark cases in front of SCOTUS have been decided correctly (e.g., Butler’s appendix explains why these decisions applied to specific cases but they probably don’t apply to you as an individual wage-earner even though the IRS implies they do apply to you); only that in the other 99% of the time (i.e., when taxes are illegally taken from everyone else) that the law is simply ignored, that the Supreme Court would sit idly by and permits such usurpations but would readily squash any “legitimized” attempt to levy income taxes, is simply preposterous.
Congress and the IRS do have the authority to rob you, whether you like it or not. You never gave it to them, but they never asked because frankly your opinion didn’t matter.