Monday, April 9, 2007

April 9, 2007 – More Debate About the US Income Tax Changes Nothing

Cato Craft over at, has a pretty good podcast posted about the purpose of recognizing your own, personal, “Tax Freedom Day.” It makes you note at what point in the year a typical person's earned enough income to pay their taxes and so are finally working for their own benefit and not to pay the feds, the state, the city, the school board, the county, and the rest.

I agree with everything Cato says about the immoral and illegal nature of taxes; that arguing and acting on the view that taxes can be challenged in court on constitutional principles, as some of us do, is a wholly futile enterprise. So says Cato anyhow, and I agree. While a few people do manage to wiggle free of the long arm of the IRS, in nearly every case I am aware of, if you play this hand, you'll lose your shirt, as well as your reputation, money, property, liberty, and even life in some cases. Impeccable logical and sound and informed legal argumentation is futile. Expecting the government-run courts to seriously entertain arguments to the contrary is like expecting a cat not to chase a dangling piece of string. Of course Leviathan will act against you; its the nature of that particular beast, no? Just like a cat and dangling string.

Like the words of wisdom Cato winds up the podcast with, “the constitution is irrelevant”in American courts. Cato says “pay your taxes, and stay free”. That is to say, free to act against the state, and able to live your life. Taxes, for now, are just a cost of doing “business” with the state. A price we pay to stay at liberty.

You're a good man Cato Craft: clear-eyed and pragmatic to a fault. And that's a problem I'd like to have.

Technorati Tags:


freeman said...

Yep, I'm in agreement here as well.

The only effective way to engage in tax resistance that I'm aware of is to study the approach advocated at The Picket Line:

The Anarchist Flamethrower said...

Good idea FM.

zrated said...

i don't know, guys. i tend to think that working within the "legal framework" is also an exercise in futility. it's simply unacceptable to me that we have to whittle our lives down to the level of subsistence to gain a modicum of economic liberty. when it all boils down, i think we will have to fight fire with fire, because the beast is hungry and it will eat - period. i just think that it is naive to believe that violence is not necessary. i mean, honestly, do you really think that paying taxes as a dissenter is going to have an affect, or that everyone reducing their income to subsistence is going to remain untaxable? it will be taxable soon after. law obligates the people, not the government, and to overcome that, great sacrifices will have to be made. freeman, i'm not familiar with you, but Ali, you know i respect you and your work, but i think that trying to find a way out without physical conflict is either naive or cowardly.