Excerpt

Readers will scarcely have given any thought to the fact that they have never lived in the system of government argued for by Madison, Jay, and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

"It may come as a shock ..." wrote John Flynn, "to be told that[you] have never experienced that kind of society which [our] ancestors knew as the American Republic ..." Flynn, the editor of the popular weekly the Saturday Evening Post, had already come to this conclusion in 1955. In his book The Decline of the American Republic, Flynn observed that Americans needlessly "live in the war-torn, debt-ridden, tax-harried wreckage of a once imposing edif ice of the free society which arose out of the American Revolution on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution."

An empire needs a source of income sufficient to fund its military campaigns, regulatory regimes, and domestic schemes. It also needs a strong central authority to direct its ambitious new programs. In one short 12-month span, a year the writer Frank Chodorov calls the "Revolution of 1913," the empire got the tools it needed. That year—the same year European countries abandoned the gold standard in preparation for World
War I—the old Republic ceased to exist.

I would, and do, argue the promise of the Republic died at Appomattox.

America's current system of income tax is a twentieth-century invention. Previous attempts at creating a national tax had failed or had been thrown out because they violated tenets of the Constitution deemed essential by the founders. In its first 100 years, the United States supported its federal government with a series of what we would call "sin taxes" today, on whiskey, tobacco, and sugar. By 1817, all internal taxes were abolished by Congress, leaving only tariffs on imported goods as a means for supporting the government.

The first income tax that citizens of the young Republic were forced to endure came about because Congress had been asked to fund the War between the States. In 1862, a tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 was assessed at the rate of 3 percent, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was created. The war was costing $1.75 million per day.2 The government sold off land, borrowed heavily, enacted various fees, and increased excise taxes, but it simply wasn't enough. The income tax seemed like the only way to finance the war and service the country's then-staggering $505 million debt. That tax was promoted as a temporary wartime measure. Temporary it was. In 1872, after servicing the Reconstruction, Congress yanked the "temporary" tax.

But that was not the end of it. The income tax appealed to empire builders because it alone offered enough cash to finance the enterprise. But it had another appeal—to the larceny and envy in the hearts of ordinary citizens.

Continued

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-revolution-of-1913/

QuoteI would, and do, argue the promise of the Republic died at Appomattox.

I, on the other hand, would argue that it died when those stupid Southerners fired on Fort Sumter.

Quote from: mdgiles on February 06, 2012, 12:05:55 PM
I, on the other hand, would argue that it died when those stupid Southerners fired on Fort Sumter.

No surprise, MD.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 06, 2012, 01:26:48 PM
No surprise, MD.

Interesting, I expected at least an argument. Or do you agree with me?

Quote from: mdgiles on February 06, 2012, 01:48:32 PM
Interesting, I expected at least an argument. Or do you agree with me?

I agree the Confederacy fired on Sumter first.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 06, 2012, 03:26:33 PM
I agree the Confederacy fired on Sumter first.

And whether their resort to extra-Cosntitutional methods opened the door to other abuses of the Constitution?

The promise of the republic did not die at Appomattox, Ft. Sumter, or anywhere else.  It's still here, you doomsayers.  And I think it's interesting that the Supreme Court, whether constituted with conservatives, liberals, or a mixture, have consistently ruled that the 1913 income tax is, indeed, constitutional.  Made so by an amendment that was done constitutionally.  This is the kind of issue that renders conservatards basically harmless.  They get so worked up persevorating over something they can't possibly change that they let the things they might be able to change fall by the wayside.  That's why they rally around airheads like St. Sarah.

Quote from: elmerfudd on February 06, 2012, 04:14:27 PM
The promise of the republic did not die at Appomattox, Ft. Sumter, or anywhere else.  It's still here, you doomsayers.  And I think it's interesting that the Supreme Court, whether constituted with conservatives, liberals, or a mixture, have consistently ruled that the 1913 income tax is, indeed, constitutional.  Made so by an amendment that was done constitutionally.  This is the kind of issue that renders conservatards basically harmless.  They get so worked up persevorating over something they can't possibly change that they let the things they might be able to change fall by the wayside.  That's why they rally around airheads like St. Sarah.

No one say it isn't Constitutional, it was passed by the Amendment process. But if all you Leftists are allowed to keep telling us what a "bad idea" the Second Amendment was, and continually lecture us on how it's "outmoded" and "dangerous". Not to mention constantly writing laws that attempt to contravene it; then I guess we on the right can point out what a piss poor Idea the 16th Amendment (and the 17th for that matte) was. It's even more "outmoded" and "dangerous" than the Second. Like the 18th it just seemed a good idea at the time, but has proved a disaster in practice.

Quote from: mdgiles on February 06, 2012, 05:30:21 PM
No one say it isn't Constitutional, it was passed by the Amendment process. But if all you Leftists are allowed to keep telling us what a "bad idea" the Second Amendment was, and continually lecture us on how it's "outmoded" and "dangerous". Not to mention constantly writing laws that attempt to contravene it; then I guess we on the right can point out what a piss poor Idea the 16th Amendment (and the 17th for that matte) was. It's even more "outmoded" and "dangerous" than the Second. Like the 18th it just seemed a good idea at the time, but has proved a disaster in practice.

Hey, 'tard. Show me where I ever said the second amendment was a problem.  I won't even give you an e for effort on that lame attempt at deflection. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on February 06, 2012, 04:14:27 PM
The promise of the republic did not die at Appomattox, Ft. Sumter, or anywhere else.  It's still here, you doomsayers.  And I think it's interesting that the Supreme Court, whether constituted with conservatives, liberals, or a mixture, have consistently ruled that the 1913 income tax is, indeed, constitutional.  Made so by an amendment that was done constitutionally.  This is the kind of issue that renders conservatards basically harmless.  They get so worked up persevorating over something they can't possibly change that they let the things they might be able to change fall by the wayside.  That's why they rally around airheads like St. Sarah.

No one stated, Elmer, as I recall, it was unconstitutional. It is a recognized amendment to the Constitution. It is still immoral to steal a man's wealth and property by force.

A perusal of the amendment process at the time, though, leads one to believe it was illegally ratified. It, of course, would take an amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which, I sure, will never happen. The act of taxing income is still immoral.

Quote from: mdgiles on February 06, 2012, 05:30:21 PM
No one say it isn't Constitutional, it was passed by the Amendment process. But if all you Leftists are allowed to keep telling us what a "bad idea" the Second Amendment was, and continually lecture us on how it's "outmoded" and "dangerous". Not to mention constantly writing laws that attempt to contravene it; then I guess we on the right can point out what a piss poor Idea the 16th Amendment (and the 17th for that matte) was. It's even more "outmoded" and "dangerous" than the Second. Like the 18th it just seemed a good idea at the time, but has proved a disaster in practice.

Well said, MD.

Quote from: Shooterman on February 06, 2012, 08:36:54 PM
No one stated, Elmer, as I recall, it was unconstitutional. It is a recognized amendment to the Constitution. It is still immoral to steal a man's wealth and property by force.

A perusal of the amendment process at the time, though, leads one to believe it was illegally ratified. It, of course, would take an amendment to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which, I sure, will never happen. The act of taxing income is still immoral.

The only way to steal is by force. But taxation is not stealing, is it?  If it is, why would only taxing income be stealing?  Why is taxing income any more immoral than taxing real estate?  Or a sales transaction?  Or an imported product?  Or cigarettes?  Or whiskey?

Quote from: elmerfudd on February 07, 2012, 11:02:16 AM
The only way to steal is by force. But taxation is not stealing, is it?  If it is, why would only taxing income be stealing?  Why is taxing income any more immoral than taxing real estate?  Or a sales transaction?  Or an imported product?  Or cigarettes?  Or whiskey?

It's all theft.

Quote from: Harry on February 07, 2012, 11:18:57 AM

It's all theft.

Please.  I'd rather hear from someone capable of rational thought. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on February 07, 2012, 12:01:10 PM
Please.  I'd rather hear from someone capable of rational thought.

Why? You wouldn't understand it.