Taxes -Highway Robbery?
Paul Bond ©2001
nbond@bigpond.net.au
At the time of this writing, many persons of the United States and other so-called free
nations are seriously questioning the payment of taxes levied by agents of governments.
The IRS has come under Congressional investigation for misdeeds in the past.
Private persons and organisations such as "We The People" are on the move against
the government and the IRS. They are demanding to hear from the government as
to whether the 16th Amendment was ever correctly ratified. So far the government has
remained silent.
See their grievences at www.givemeliberty.org
Lysander Spooner, a lawyer of some repute in the latter part of the 19th century,
wrote a paper on this vexing subject. Here is an excerpt from those writings:
www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/notreasn.htm
"The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that
any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
1. It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are
paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company,
voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man
makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties
to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same
as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free
not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be
protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical
fact. The fact is that 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 villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you,
attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the
government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually
known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility
of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate
some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they
keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus
designated:
Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money
to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to
say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants
none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his;
that we CHOOSE to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and
that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who
the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the
government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him,
without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that,
too, is our business, and not his; that we do not CHOOSE to make ourselves
INDIVIDUALLY known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot)
appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he
complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect
him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to
comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands,
but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure
of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of
them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property,
he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all
hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and
hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like
him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large
numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors;
that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired
murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost
what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be
hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly
disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have
no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have
thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good
loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a
wherefore.
It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And
how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to
"support the government," it needs no further argument to show.
2. Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or
pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and
has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose
"the government." To him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction, an
incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give
no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended
agents. "The government" itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by
common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to
vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents
of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote,
and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the
government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by
secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose "the government," for
the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no
contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of
necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no
contract, consent, or pledge to support them -- that is, to support "the
government," or the Constitution.
3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the
government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he
knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of
"the government" -- that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and
murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of "the government," and
have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money
they demand. To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But
as this agent does not make his principals individually known to the
taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who
are "the government" -- that is, who were the robbers -- than he did before.
To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent, he entered
into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledges himself to obey them,
to support them, and to give them whatever money they should demand of him
in the future, is simply ridiculous.
4. All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of
money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can
establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire
soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general
obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in
war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money
he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains,
who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests
primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers
extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they
always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse
them more money.
For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital
facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a
"government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used
against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in
subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money,
without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery
and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future.
3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would
ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they
profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they
wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that
they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they
would take his moeny without his consent, for the purpose of buying food
or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants
"protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody
has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.
5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists
in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have
assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as
they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.
6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment,
or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than
it depends wholly upon voluntary support.
These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably
be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a "government," for
the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make an explicit
and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose.
It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such
payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or
obligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence
at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is
under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is
under any obligation to support it."
"The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered --so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters."
The following excerpted material was written before the “United Nations” was formed, and has bearing on the foregoing. Please bear in mind that “world government” should be interpreted as representative world government, as it is clearly defined; not as the socialist totalitarian world government currently being pushed into existence by a New World Order, as a group of power elites, corrupted by power, or a federation controlled by a shadow government. If the concept of a united world seems foreign to you, ask yourself what better alternative remains. What will the end result of rabid nationalism and political oneupmanship be if not more of the same? More of the same in our century ultimately means extinction.
"Peace will not come to our planet until every so-called sovereign nation surrenders its power to make war into the hands of a representative government of all mankind. Political sovereignty is innate with the peoples of the world. When all the peoples of Earth create a world government, they have the right and the power to make such a government SOVEREIGN; and when such a representative or democratic world power controls the world's land, air, and naval forces, peace on earth and good will among men can prevail--but not until then.
To use an important nineteenth- and twentieth-century illustration: The fifty states of the American Federal Union have long enjoyed peace. They have no more wars among themselves. They have surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government, and through the arbitrament of war, they have abandoned all claims to the delusions of self-determination. While each state regulates its internal affairs, it is not concerned with
foreign relations, tariffs, immigration, military affairs, or interstate commerce. Neither do the individual states concern themselves with matters of citizenship. The forty-eight states suffer the ravages of war only when the federal government's sovereignty is in some way jeopardized.
These fifty states, having abandoned the twin sophistries of sovereignty and self-determination, enjoy interstate peace and tranquillity. So will the nations of Earth begin to enjoy peace when they freely surrender their respective sovereignties into the hands of a global government--the sovereignty of the brotherhood of men. In this world state the small nations will be as powerful as the great, even as the small state of Rhode Island has its two senators in the American Congress just the same as the populous state of New York or the large state of Texas.
The limited (state) sovereignty of these fifty states was created by men and for men. The superstate (national) sovereignty of the American Federal Union was created by the original thirteen of these states for their own benefit and for the benefit of men. Sometime the supernational sovereignty of the planetary government of mankind will be similarly created by nations for their own benefit and for the benefit of all men.
Citizens are not born for the benefit of governments; governments are organizations created and devised for the benefit of men. There can be no end to the evolution of political sovereignty short of the appearance of the government of the sovereignty of all men. All other sovereignties are relative in value, intermediate in meaning, and subordinate in status.
With scientific progress, wars are going to become more and more devastating until they become almost racially suicidal. How many world wars must be fought and how many leagues of nations must fail before men will be willing to establish the government of mankind and begin to enjoy the blessings of permanent peace and thrive on the tranquillity of good will--world-wide good will--among men?"
Now that we have a perspective on what is necessary, what is to be done?
