It is unfortunate that almost anything constitutional has change in interpretation since the "progressive" era. It is the case with the "general welfare" clause, which has led to the burgeoning bureaucracy we know today (in addition to the multitude of federal laws, rules, and regulations), and it has torn at the very fabric of our country. The founders explicitly stated that they authored the Constitution to improve the Union created under the Articles of Confederation, and that the purpose was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That liberty-mindedness has long since given way to a more totalitarian perspective on government. Whether it has been a failure of education from as early as the early-to-mid 1800s, a failure of men to be angels (as The Federalist Number 51 informs us), Marxist indoctrination, or some combination of all of these or other factors, Americans no longer recognize the original intent of "limited government" with powers that are "few and defined." The problem does not just exist at the federal level either, though many states, as you note, are making at least small moves in the right direction.
Indeed. A fundamental misunderstanding of the General Welfare clause - one happily abetted by our educational system and by our press - gives people the freedom to say "the government can do whatever it wants."
If so, then why enumerate powers at all?
There's also the moral failing of "compassion by proxy," where people think that they are being good by empowering the government to take from others in order to do the things they want done.
Ah yes, “compassion by proxy,” or what I called it in the title of one of my recent pieces, “counterfeit compassion.” It is easy to be empathetic when the expense is borne by others. It goes back to one of your favorite topics: OPM.
"how much of the fruit of my labor can the state take before I become a slave?"
I have said elsewhere that, "property tax makes people renters of the state; income tax makes people slaves of the state." The only tax on the people, IMO, that is not abusive to these ends, is a consumption (excise) tax. Some argue that SCOTUS upheld the income tax as constitutional on the basis of it being an excise, but this is not how the founders would have understood the term "excise." Going to Webster's 1828 Dictionary is helpful in this regard: "EXCI'SE, noun s as z. [Latin excisum, cut off, from excido.]
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last state before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family. But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printer's, etc." - https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/excise
This is how the founders would have viewed an excise. So, whether the government lays an excise, or even a capitation (poll tax), these would be, under our Constitution, lawful, and perhaps moral. But property tax and income tax are not. They are, as you posit, armed robbery.
Property tax is a tough nut, especially from a practical/utilitarian perspective. In the "fee-for-use" model, it can be argued that the owner of a parcel of property is receiving certain services, some of them very generalized (such as courts that protect property rights), and that a mechanism for paying for those services should exist. There is much that property tax revenue is used for that is *not* fee-for-service, and that portion of it is indeed immoral.
I'm not convinced that a consumption tax as a "general revenue" source is any more moral than other taxes - it is still a draw from human interaction.
I think the better approach is to focus on limiting what government is allowed to do with our tax dollars, and once those limits are reinforced, we can look at more proximate "user fee" mechanisms for the money streams.
The term Eminent Domain which I recently learned about watching the series Yellowstone can be a tricky proposition. First coined by the Dutch Jurist Hugo Grotius in his treatise The Rights Of War And Peace(1625), Eminent Domain gives the government, its subdivisions and municipalities, but also private parties and corporations the right to acquire land in return for compensation so it can be used as a benefit(railroads, highways, parks, housing etc.) to the public. Right away the terms "benefit" and "compensation" come under scrutiny because they encompass such a wide variety of possiblities. The fact that the private sector can have such a strong hand in play tells you something as well. Even if it didn't we all know state legislatures can be influenced by the old dollar.
This brings to mind a scene from a season 1 episode of the aforementioned Yellowstone. The patriarch of what is supposedly the largest ranch in the U.S., John Dutton(Kevin Costner), finds a busload of tourists trespassing on his land. They're from the Far East most likely the People's Republic Of China. He warns them to leave because it's private land. Unsurprisingly, they don't believe him and even press the matter by saying in Chinese, requiring the tour guide to translate, that it's wrong for one man to own so much and it should be shared by all the people. A couple of shotgun blasts in the air and as the unwelcome visitors are scrambling for the bus Dutton leves them with this maxim: "This is America. We don't share land here."
Anything can be taken with enough force. The rules of a society are only as good as the people who enforce them and who want them enforced. If a supermajority of Americans decided to abolish private property, the Constitution could not stop them.
So much of what's wrong in governance is the result of envy, and unfortunately envy has been exalted when it's aimed at certain targets.
Peter, I just read this after posting on FB asking about your differences with conservatives …
I just responded.
🤞🗽
Gotta overturn the Kelo travesty.
It is unfortunate that almost anything constitutional has change in interpretation since the "progressive" era. It is the case with the "general welfare" clause, which has led to the burgeoning bureaucracy we know today (in addition to the multitude of federal laws, rules, and regulations), and it has torn at the very fabric of our country. The founders explicitly stated that they authored the Constitution to improve the Union created under the Articles of Confederation, and that the purpose was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That liberty-mindedness has long since given way to a more totalitarian perspective on government. Whether it has been a failure of education from as early as the early-to-mid 1800s, a failure of men to be angels (as The Federalist Number 51 informs us), Marxist indoctrination, or some combination of all of these or other factors, Americans no longer recognize the original intent of "limited government" with powers that are "few and defined." The problem does not just exist at the federal level either, though many states, as you note, are making at least small moves in the right direction.
Indeed. A fundamental misunderstanding of the General Welfare clause - one happily abetted by our educational system and by our press - gives people the freedom to say "the government can do whatever it wants."
If so, then why enumerate powers at all?
There's also the moral failing of "compassion by proxy," where people think that they are being good by empowering the government to take from others in order to do the things they want done.
Ah yes, “compassion by proxy,” or what I called it in the title of one of my recent pieces, “counterfeit compassion.” It is easy to be empathetic when the expense is borne by others. It goes back to one of your favorite topics: OPM.
"how much of the fruit of my labor can the state take before I become a slave?"
I have said elsewhere that, "property tax makes people renters of the state; income tax makes people slaves of the state." The only tax on the people, IMO, that is not abusive to these ends, is a consumption (excise) tax. Some argue that SCOTUS upheld the income tax as constitutional on the basis of it being an excise, but this is not how the founders would have understood the term "excise." Going to Webster's 1828 Dictionary is helpful in this regard: "EXCI'SE, noun s as z. [Latin excisum, cut off, from excido.]
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last state before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family. But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printer's, etc." - https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/excise
This is how the founders would have viewed an excise. So, whether the government lays an excise, or even a capitation (poll tax), these would be, under our Constitution, lawful, and perhaps moral. But property tax and income tax are not. They are, as you posit, armed robbery.
Property tax is a tough nut, especially from a practical/utilitarian perspective. In the "fee-for-use" model, it can be argued that the owner of a parcel of property is receiving certain services, some of them very generalized (such as courts that protect property rights), and that a mechanism for paying for those services should exist. There is much that property tax revenue is used for that is *not* fee-for-service, and that portion of it is indeed immoral.
I'm not convinced that a consumption tax as a "general revenue" source is any more moral than other taxes - it is still a draw from human interaction.
I think the better approach is to focus on limiting what government is allowed to do with our tax dollars, and once those limits are reinforced, we can look at more proximate "user fee" mechanisms for the money streams.
The term Eminent Domain which I recently learned about watching the series Yellowstone can be a tricky proposition. First coined by the Dutch Jurist Hugo Grotius in his treatise The Rights Of War And Peace(1625), Eminent Domain gives the government, its subdivisions and municipalities, but also private parties and corporations the right to acquire land in return for compensation so it can be used as a benefit(railroads, highways, parks, housing etc.) to the public. Right away the terms "benefit" and "compensation" come under scrutiny because they encompass such a wide variety of possiblities. The fact that the private sector can have such a strong hand in play tells you something as well. Even if it didn't we all know state legislatures can be influenced by the old dollar.
This brings to mind a scene from a season 1 episode of the aforementioned Yellowstone. The patriarch of what is supposedly the largest ranch in the U.S., John Dutton(Kevin Costner), finds a busload of tourists trespassing on his land. They're from the Far East most likely the People's Republic Of China. He warns them to leave because it's private land. Unsurprisingly, they don't believe him and even press the matter by saying in Chinese, requiring the tour guide to translate, that it's wrong for one man to own so much and it should be shared by all the people. A couple of shotgun blasts in the air and as the unwelcome visitors are scrambling for the bus Dutton leves them with this maxim: "This is America. We don't share land here."
That doesn't mean it can't be taken.
Anything can be taken with enough force. The rules of a society are only as good as the people who enforce them and who want them enforced. If a supermajority of Americans decided to abolish private property, the Constitution could not stop them.
So much of what's wrong in governance is the result of envy, and unfortunately envy has been exalted when it's aimed at certain targets.
Extortion is also apropos: "Nice little home you've got there. Too bad if we had to take it to cover this tax bill...."