our suite in a nutshell:
fire drill goes off at around 8:15
me: "god dammit, right in the middle of gilmore girls!"
iulia: "i could be WORKING on things!"
lauren: woken up by the fire drill
nancy: not in the building
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monday, April 26, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
there's some demonstration and press conference thing at ucla where students are supposed to tell legislators to stop budget cuts and stop cutting outreach programs. outreach programs help "underrepresented" students get into ucla. the flyer i recieved regarding the event had this nugget of joy written on it: "support the programs that got you here!" my response: "my own merits got me here."
Monday, April 05, 2004
After a recent debate regarding taxes and the moral purpose of government, i was given an article by my opponent about an ex-IRS agent who has decided that income taxes are illegal. Apparently, the 16th amendment may have been improperly ratified by some states, which makes it invalid in the eyes of some tax opponents. This claim has, according to the article, been "debunked" by the IRS and the Supreme Court many times. The article was meant to be a follow-up to our debate, in which i argued that taxation, particularly income taxation, is immoral. I use this anecdote to illustrate a common flaw in many arguments, especially those of a political nature.
My opponent sought to disprove my claim that income taxation is immoral by pointing to the constitution and saying "See! it says it right there! Income taxes ARE legal!" What he doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that my claim has nothing to do with legality. As many people do, he appealed to the constitution--a legal document--to support his claim of morality. Any grade school child who has lived through black history month or listened to a talk about the holocaust can tell you that what is legal is not the same as what is moral. Man's will does not determine what is moral: man's rights do. My beliefs about income tax do not concern whether it is legal: they concern whether it should be legal in a country whose laws supposedly rest on moral ground. The answer is no.
The philosophy that allows income tax translates to: no man's property is his own; it belongs to the government. Any trades that occur between men occur only by privilege bestowed by the government, so the government can collect any portion of the items in that trade that the majority deems appropriate. This is obviously not the case. Whatever a free man produces belongs to him, as does whatever he acquires by free trade. No entity other than himself--not the majority, not a dictator, not a legislature, not a police officer--can control his property. As such, income taxation is the equivalent of stealing. Men pay income tax under a gun; the government takes property that does not belong to it.
Income tax supporters cling to a shred of reason by justifying income tax as payment for government services. Everyone uses government services, so everyone should pay for them. The weakness in this rationalizing becomes apparent if we apply the same reasoning to a store. Suppose I am minding my own business one day when employees from the local Target show up at my house and demand that I come shop at their store. I decline, but they hold a gun to my back and escort me to Target, where they fill my basket with various items. They then push me and my basket to the checkout counter and demand payment, still at gunpoint. When we leave the store, they remove the items I will not use from the basket and distribute them to other shoppers. Even the most extreme of taxation supporters would not support this string of events, yet this is exactly what taxation entails. The government provides services, and then forces every person to pay for them, regardless of whether every person uses them or wants them. One cannot force services on others and then force payment for those services. The idea is ridiculous.
My opponent sought to disprove my claim that income taxation is immoral by pointing to the constitution and saying "See! it says it right there! Income taxes ARE legal!" What he doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that my claim has nothing to do with legality. As many people do, he appealed to the constitution--a legal document--to support his claim of morality. Any grade school child who has lived through black history month or listened to a talk about the holocaust can tell you that what is legal is not the same as what is moral. Man's will does not determine what is moral: man's rights do. My beliefs about income tax do not concern whether it is legal: they concern whether it should be legal in a country whose laws supposedly rest on moral ground. The answer is no.
The philosophy that allows income tax translates to: no man's property is his own; it belongs to the government. Any trades that occur between men occur only by privilege bestowed by the government, so the government can collect any portion of the items in that trade that the majority deems appropriate. This is obviously not the case. Whatever a free man produces belongs to him, as does whatever he acquires by free trade. No entity other than himself--not the majority, not a dictator, not a legislature, not a police officer--can control his property. As such, income taxation is the equivalent of stealing. Men pay income tax under a gun; the government takes property that does not belong to it.
Income tax supporters cling to a shred of reason by justifying income tax as payment for government services. Everyone uses government services, so everyone should pay for them. The weakness in this rationalizing becomes apparent if we apply the same reasoning to a store. Suppose I am minding my own business one day when employees from the local Target show up at my house and demand that I come shop at their store. I decline, but they hold a gun to my back and escort me to Target, where they fill my basket with various items. They then push me and my basket to the checkout counter and demand payment, still at gunpoint. When we leave the store, they remove the items I will not use from the basket and distribute them to other shoppers. Even the most extreme of taxation supporters would not support this string of events, yet this is exactly what taxation entails. The government provides services, and then forces every person to pay for them, regardless of whether every person uses them or wants them. One cannot force services on others and then force payment for those services. The idea is ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)