Rightly or wrongly taxes are constitutional. As a result of the
outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion they remained constitutional.
It is rather ironic that Gallatin became the Treasury Secretary and
a statue in his likeness appears in front of the treasury building.
$
--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> You could be right. Still the idea in 2000 that custom duties and
> excise taxes would be enough to run the government on was not
> communicated very well to this Greenhorn on libertarian ideas and
> politics in general so I spoke up about it and I did not vote for
him
> because I saw it at the time as hypocriscy of a typical politican
to
> get votes. When I brought it up I got jumped on with people saying
> things like Its Classic Liberalism and the taxes are
constitution. I
> said " so what" that doesn't mean anything to me, its intiation of
> force. Hell I got off to a wrong start from the begining in the
LP, I
> didn't know anything about poltics except I did not trust
politicans,
> I still don't, they got to earn that trust as far as I'm concern
but
> I fiqure now some of them have good intentions but many of them
they
> need to cut the crap because the people who don't keep up with
> politics but know the results of politicans can see right through
> these games.--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> >
> > Quoth terry:
> >
> > > I have a lot of respect for Harry but he is wrong taxes are
not
> > > necessary if you got enought honest rational people in the
> country to
> > > fund the government through donnations
> >
> > Stop and hold. Harry didn't say that taxes are "necessary." He
> wanted
> > to get rid of them (and of government) entirely, and he said so
> > repeatedly.
> >
> > However, after 1994 he was doing a particular thing in a
particular
> > context: He was
> >
> > 1. Running for president;
> >
> > 2. In a particular society, with a particular system.
> >
> > That system doesn't allow for itself to just be crumpled up and
> thrown
> > in the trash. Only a violent revolution could likely accomplish
any
> > such thing, and Harry Browne wasn't fomenting violent
revolution --
> > even his pre-1994 anarchism was of the individualist/personalist
> type
> > that emphasized escaping, rather than smashing, authoritarian
> systems.
> >
> > What Browne hoped to accomplish _in electoral politics_ was to
> > _reduce_ the size of government to its constitutional
parameters,
> and
> > to force that reduction by eliminating the income tax (actually,
he
> > was forced to go that far -- in _Why Government Doesn't Work_ and
> > throughout the early part of his 1996 campaign, he touted a low-
rate
> > flat income tax proposal, until LP "purists" tantrumed him into
> going
> > further).
> >
> > He never advertised his reduction proposals, including but not
> limited
> > to the continuation of a low, uniform tariff rate, as a
libertarian
> > end state. He very specifically pointed to them as prerequisites
to
> an
> > environment in which a libertarian end-state could become
plausible
> > and people could decide whether they wanted to preserve some
shred
> of
> > government or take it all the way.
> >
> > Tom Knapp
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
