OpEd: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

By THOMAS SOWELL

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

Continues at link

Thomas Sowell is always worth taking a moment to read. This OpEd all the more so, irrespective of one's political persuasion.

It's interesting to contrast it with another essay from 2004 I hearken back to on occasion dealing with rational ignorance vs. an informed electorate.

When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy

Democracy demands an informed electorate. Voters who lack adequate knowledge about politics will find it difficult to control public policy. Inadequate voter knowledge prevents government from reflecting the will of the people in any meaningful way. Such ignorance also raises doubts about democracy as a means of serving the interests of a majority. Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may be manipulated by elites. They may also demand policies that contravene their own interests.

The American electorate does not have adequate knowledge for voters to control public policy. Scholars have long documented the limits of voter knowledge about the institutions and policies of the government. That ignorance is not a moral failing. The rational voter has little incentive to gain more knowledge about politics because his or her vote is unlikely to affect the outcome. Since gaining more knowledge offers few benefits and substantial costs, the average citizen remains ignorant, though rationally so. Some scholars have argued that citizens use "shortcuts" to gain enough knowledge to participate in self-government. The evidence does not support the "shortcut" argument.

Continues at link

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite editorialist of all time. That said, there is a sort of naivete to this op-ed piece you linked. Although he acknowledges that the arbitrary power of FDR, he also seems to be suggesting that the United States of America has not been under the foot of tyranny, and even suggests we still aren't, but merely on a "slippery slope" to tyranny. Make no mistake about it, the POTUS cannot be "the most powerful leader of the free world" and not be a tyrant, regardless of benign a moniker such as "leader of the free world" may seem. When Americans agreed to an income tax in perpetuity, they agreed to tyranny in perpetuity, and this is what we have today.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


In my relatively short time here I have come to take note of your posts and give them their due consideration and respect. I may not always agree with you 100% [there is no one that I do] but I respect your logic, knowledge, thought-process, and the time you take to offer us an informative and well reasoned reading.

That said, I'm afraid I am far too much of an idealist to agree that we are and have been living under tyranny. Yes, I admit the tax system is tyrannical in its fashion, and I am oft heard ranting about being a "Tax Slave" but I could live outside of that tax system if I chose to do so. It would not be a life that I would choose as a first choice, and it's not a life I have as yet chosen, but it is still an *option* available to me so how much of a "tax slave" could I be in reality?

And, I also would argue that "being the leader of the Free World" equals being a tyrant. I would ask you to expound on that concept if you are amiable to such. I find myself curious of your opinion and perspective on this.



[edit on 21/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

For the last 70 or so years, the US has been on a slow slide into tyranny and oppression. It started with the lies that were used to enter into the conflicts and wars of our modern nation, compounded by voluntarily giving in to an illegal taxation on individual income that would later become mandatory. Enter the Cold War and the US Gov't began stripping away constitutional freedoms a little at a time and have continued to do so under that same guise.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" (B. Franklin)

Every president since Hoover has mentioned the New World Order and since Wilson, they have been working on the US, bit by bit, to bring the nation into line.

"For it becomes clear that the first step toward World Government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political and the social" (E. Roper)


Council on Foreign Relations
Formation of the Federal Reserve
Formation of the Bilderburg Group
Kennedy Assassination
Trilateral Commission
NAFTA
Patriot Act


This is just a very VERY short list of actions taken against US citizens to chip away at freedoms and move this nation towards an oppressive one world governing system.

It is only obvious when you start looking beyond the limitation of your comfortable lounge chair.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe


As to living outside of the tax system, all people always have the choice to live outside of tyrannical systems, regardless of what sort of tyranny is in place. Tyrants cannot exist without the willing acquiescence of those who tyrants rule.

As to expounding upon my assertion that one cannot be "the leader of of the free world", without also being a tyrant, I will gladly do so. In order to be the leader of the "free world", while not being elected by any other machine than that of the American electoral college, some other mechanism need be in play in order for this leadership of other nations to be true. That mechanism is the combination of the fact that the POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military industrial complex in the world, free or otherwise, and of course, the IRS.

It is not just that the Commander in Chief is capable of bringing about destruction of his or enemies, but this Commander in Chief has found legislative authority to command more than just armies. It is necessary to do so if one is to be leader of the "free world", to circumvent the Constitutional constraints placed upon them, and be not just the leader of the "free" world, but be the leader of Congress, and even the SCOTUS, and most tragically, be the leader of those who truly hold the inherent political power; the people.

Thus, the POTUS, under today's paradigm, has used Executive Orders in order to circumvent Congress and legislate himself, and even when relying on Congress, will often take the credit for legislation they pass. This is why the so called "health care reform" passed by Congress is known as Obama Care, and the wars both in Afghanistan and Iraq were once known as Bush's wars and have rightfully become Obama's wars, even though Congress never officially declared war. Indeed, Congress has not declared war since June 5th of 1942, and yet The United States has fought the Korean War, The Vietnam War, The First Gulf War, and the two current Wars being fought today, not to mention the incursions such as Lebanon Crisis of 1958, and several other "peace keeping operations".

Ever since FDR did battle with the SCOTUS, back in the 1930's, and indeed, the Supreme Court almost brought ruin to Roosevelt's presidency and schemes, but it was his infamous "Court packing plan" that brought this branch of the government under his heel. Because many of his "New Deal" programs were being struck down as unconstitutional, (and rightfully so), by what is now known as "The Four Horseman", which were Justices Sutherland, Van Devanter, Butler, and McReynolds, with the sometimes assistance of Justice Roberts, FDR began selling to the people, and to Congress the notion of adding more Supreme Court Justices to the court.

Actually, the American people at that time were dead set against this "Court packing scheme", but it had its effect on the SCOTUS just the same, and Justice Roberts stopped siding with the "Four Horseman", beginning with West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish in 1937, and from that day forward the SCOTUS did not rule another one of FDR's "New Deal" schemes unconstitutional again, and soon after, each of "The Four Horseman" began retiring, allowing FDR to appoint Justices more sympathetic to his cause, and less sympathetic to the Constitution by which they all were restrained by.

Since that time the SCOTUS has been primarily a Court that sides with expanding government, and only until recently has that Court begun to re-express strict Constitutional views. Yet, one of the primary factors many people gauge when voting on a President, is who that President will appoint to the Supreme Court, and while in 1935 the majority of the American people were not so willing to accept the intrusions upon a free market that FDR endeavored to destroy, today most people can't imagine a free market without some kind of regulatory device imposed upon it, which is to say, most people can't really imagine a free market at all.

Because the people have such a hard time today imagining a free market, this means that no business is allowed to operate as a business without first being licensed to do so, and no one can gain a license to operate a business without first obtaining a "tax I.D. Number", even though it is inherently illegal for one government agency to coerce people into submitting to another government agency. How this is legal is through the voluntary actions of the people that willfully grant jurisdiction by first obtaining a "tax I.D. number" so they may "apply" for a license in order to do business. This has assured the Internal Revenue Service a vast amount of Revenue for the federal government in order for it to fight its wars and re-distribute wealth. The fighting of wars is the coercive part of getting the rest of the "free world" to acquiesce to the Commander in Chief's agenda, while simultaneously using the vast amounts of tax dollars raised to bribe both the American people, and those nations of whom are asked to acquiesce to the "leadership" of the POTUS.

This is a digested version of the history of tyranny in the U.S. but should work as a basis by which to begin a discussion about what is, and what is not tyranny, and whether or not the U.S. actually is, or is not a tyrannical state, imposing its will not just on the American people, but many nations across the globe.





[edit on 21-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by wheresthetruth

It is only obvious when you start looking beyond the limitation of your comfortable lounge chair.

Do tell.

Oh, pardon me... I've come unsettled from my comfortable lounge chair where I was contentedly reading Gokhale's Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Alternatives

Was this comment direct at me? Or, is it a "general snark off?"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you for the reply to my query. There are a few things I would like to reply with and few follow up questions, but given the hour I must delay them for tomorrow evening. You covered a great deal of territory in your reply and I cannot help but hope you might pick this back up on the morrow.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Thank you for the reply to my query. There are a few things I would like to reply with and few follow up questions, but given the hour I must delay them for tomorrow evening. You covered a great deal of territory in your reply and I cannot help but hope you might pick this back up on the morrow.

Whew! I was hoping that would be the case, as you are correct, this will take some time. Have a great night, and I will see you tomorrow.

Democracy is 51% telling the other 49 how they should live.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Democracy is 51% telling the other 49 how they should live.

thank goodness the US is supposed to be a republic.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Tyrants cannot exist without the willing acquiescence of those who tyrants rule.

Perhaps true to a point, but beyond that point, it fails to take into account the 100's of millions who have lived often crushingly brutal lives with barbarically brutal deaths under any number of despots, from local Lords, to the Catholic church, to the Protestant Reformation, Hitler's Germany, Russia's Stalin, China's Mao with the Cultural Revolution, the Butaan Death March, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, the Taliban pre Bush 43, goodness... the list goes on but I think I've made the point I am attempting to make. The victims of the above men and regimes did not acquiesce to the tyrants they found themselves victim of. I would strenuously argue that you treat the term "tyranny" too lightly and rob it of its true meaning.

~~~~~~

POTUS as the "Leader of the Free World" is granted that title not only because we have the "Biggest and Baddest" military in the world, the willingness [rightly or wrongly] to expend "National Treasure" - Blood and Coin, the willingness to blatantly purchase support in the grandest tradition of human habit extending back eons, and because Americans have an over abundance of hubris in the majority's belief that it is better to push back the darkness of evil when and how we are able than to accept it as a "co-equal alternative lifestyle."

Our president is not granted that title because of a demand backed up by *force* or threat of force. Monetary coercion is about as "bloody" as it gets. One need only look to Turkey and Gulf War II to see that this strategy is not always successful. But, in fairness to the argument, Turkey had no conception that we would not meet the price they demanded, it was not that they were *unwilling*, they just wanted more "coin" than we were willing to pay... much to their shock.

~~~~~~~~~

Presidential Executive Orders:

No argument from me that this is a bastardization of our system of checks and balances. Lincoln used it to his advantage during the Civil War when he suspended Habeas Corpus, the earliest example I can recall off the top of my head.

It is a problem, and I have no answer to it, especially in the day of politicians who do not want to take responsibility for making a decision such as we have in our congress today. I accept that our president needs the mechanism in times of crisis yet I acknowledge that the "ability" has devolved to an abuse of power. Though, it is an abuse invited and welcomed by the legislative branch in their *willing* and *happy* abdication of their duties.

~~~~~~~~~~

FDR:

I've been heard [once or twice ] to refer to him as the "Father of our ruin," though I am not familiar with his antics with the Supreme Court.

In these, my later years, I have come to believe that we are in dire need of term limits for judges, *starting* with the Supreme Court Justices. We, as a nation, cannot afford "Legislating from the Bench," nor can we afford unelected judges rewriting our Constitution at the whim of swinging, undulating, "voting blocks." To me, the courts represent a far greater *threat* to the US than does the person who sits in the Oval Office.

~~~~~~~~~~

Free Markets:

I have a "minor" anarchist streak, being a fairly radical Free Marketer. Yet, even given that, I do not deny the necessity of requiring business licenses, T.I.N.'s, tax levies, a certain level of regulation, etc.

There is some disagreement between historians about what came first: permanent settlements or trade. I happen to come down on the side of trade. Trade gave people both the incentive to specialize and the ability to not be a "generalist." In order to have "orderly trade" in something even only slightly larger than a hamlet or small village, there needs to be some regulation. In order to regulate one must first license.

In order to support anything larger than that hamlet or small village there needs to be tax levies. Even someone with a "minor anarchist streak" grasps the need for services from others. Again, falling back on the "specialists vs. generalists" example: when I can "contract with my local authorities" my water, sewage, fire, police, refuse, streets, drainage, and all the other things I depend on others to provide without having to either do them myself or purchase them from others directly, I will live in a society that is more "orderly" and one that affords me more time to devote to either my pleasure or my profession.

Although, I could make a case that we should send a monthly check to our various taxing entities... it would make us far more aware of exactly how much money all these "services" are *really* costing us and with that heightened awareness perhaps we would demand more accountability and frugality.

So, at this point, I disagree that we live in a tyrannical system. Our system is deeply flawed and getting more so with each passing week it seems [to me], but it falls short of tyranny, for now. What next week - or next year - will bring is something that does cause me no small amount of trepidation.

Given my last paragraph I would like to put forward that by labeling current circumstances as "tyranny" we water the term down and we risk having folk look around and saying: "Hey! This 'tyranny stuff' isn't sooooo bad!" Like that little boy who called Wolf too many times, when the wolf finally did show up no one paid attention.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

Perhaps true to a point, but beyond that point, it fails to take into account the 100's of millions who have lived often crushingly brutal lives with barbarically brutal deaths under any number of despots, from local Lords, to the Catholic church, to the Protestant Reformation, Hitler's Germany, Russia's Stalin, China's Mao with the Cultural Revolution, the Butaan Death March, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, the Taliban pre Bush 43, goodness... the list goes on but I think I've made the point I am attempting to make. The victims of the above men and regimes did not acquiesce to the tyrants they found themselves victim of. I would strenuously argue that you treat the term "tyranny" too lightly and rob it of its true meaning.

On the contrary my friend, I most certainly do take into account all you have listed. Some of these victims did not acquiesce and either fought back or fled. If they fled, and were able to successfully obtain political asylum, (of which many were), then they were not victims of that tyranny any longer. Those who fought and died for resisting tyranny are no doubt victims of tyranny, but their deaths only underscore their non-acquiescence to tyranny, and my point. As for the remaining victims, they were victims of their own acquiescence. It may be splitting hairs to you, but there is an infinite difference, in my estimation, between those who acquiesce to tyranny, and those who don't. Tales of heroic deeds are not told regarding those who acquiesce to forces bigger than they, the hero is he, or she, that fights against all odds. Some hero's tragically fall, others are victorious, but either way, they remain hero's. I would argue that perhaps you are taking the term tyranny too lightly.

POTUS as the "Leader of the Free World" is granted that title not only because we have the "Biggest and Baddest" military in the world, the willingness [rightly or wrongly] to expend "National Treasure" - Blood and Coin, the willingness to blatantly purchase support in the grandest tradition of human habit extending back eons, and because Americans have an over abundance of hubris in the majority's belief that it is better to push back the darkness of evil when and how we are able than to accept it as a "co-equal alternative lifestyle."

This hubris you speak of only supports my argument of acquiescence. Whatever reasons a person supports a tyrant, I assure you it has nothing to do with freedom and the inalienable rights of all.

Our president is not granted that title because of a demand backed up by *force* or threat of force. Monetary coercion is about as "bloody" as it gets. One need only look to Turkey and Gulf War II to see that this strategy is not always successful. But, in fairness to the argument, Turkey had no conception that we would not meet the price they demanded, it was not that they were *unwilling*, they just wanted more "coin" than we were willing to pay... much to their shock.

The weapons of mass destruction the Commander in Chief is in control of, and current and past wars undermine your argument, and of course, I backed up my claim with monetary coercion, which is how most tyrants play the game. Force and bribery, or coercion through other means. If it is coercion this is not a lawful act. Neither is bribery, and the only lawful wars are those fought in self defense. Again, I maintain my argument that the federal government as it stands today is one of tyranny.

It is a problem, and I have no answer to it, especially in the day of politicians who do not want to take responsibility for making a decision such as we have in our congress today. I accept that our president needs the mechanism in times of crisis yet I acknowledge that the "ability" has devolved to an abuse of power. Though, it is an abuse invited and welcomed by the legislative branch in their *willing* and *happy* abdication of their duties.

The problem starts and ends with we the people. It is we the people who have abdicated our own inherent political power in exchange for "leaders", and government hand-outs. I do not, at this point, advocate a violent revolution and there are several modern historical accounts of velvet revolutions that collapsed tyrannical regimes with relatively little to no violence. It was done so by the will of the people.

In these, my later years, I have come to believe that we are in dire need of term limits for judges, *starting* with the Supreme Court Justices. We, as a nation, cannot afford "Legislating from the Bench," nor can we afford unelected judges rewriting our Constitution at the whim of swinging, undulating, "voting blocks." To me, the courts represent a far greater *threat* to the US than does the person who sits in the Oval Office.

I am not in agreement with your assessment of term limits on Supreme Court Justices, but I most certainly agree that we cannot afford to have judges rewriting our Constitution, whether it be by whim or more deliberate. The courts only represent any threat at all because we the people have allowed them to become a threat. Judges have no more authority in declaring what are rights and what are not than any other branch of government does. Rights are self-evident, and their self evidence exists in the lack of harm they cause others, outside that of self defense, or of others, or property. All rights are inalienable, and any so called "civil rights" is nothing more than doublespeak for government granted privilege. The courts were designed to be the weakest branch of the government and we the people would do well to take a page from Andrew Jackson, (although Jackson's motives were highly questionable, his assertion was spot on.)

"They have made their decision, now let them enforce it"

~Andrew Jackson; regarding the Worcester vs. Georgia ruling by The Supreme Court~

The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings and are reliant upon the executive branch to do so, which is a position held by elected officials, which means if the people are not inclined to tolerate enforcement of judge made laws then they will remove the elected officials inclined to enforce those judge made laws.

I have a "minor" anarchist streak, being a fairly radical Free Marketer. Yet, even given that, I do not deny the necessity of requiring business licenses, T.I.N.'s, tax levies, a certain level of regulation, etc.

Free markets means precisely that, free. There is no such thing as a regulated free market. As to T.I.N.'s, this is a scheme of the Internal Revenue Service that enforces this so called "Personal Income Tax". Income taxation, especially income taxation in perpetuity, is counter productive to a free and self governed nation. Other forms of taxation do not require any schemes such as T.I.N.'s, and without an income tax, there is no need for an I.R.S.

There is some disagreement between historians about what came first: permanent settlements or trade. I happen to come down on the side of trade. Trade gave people both the incentive to specialize and the ability to not be a "generalist." In order to have "orderly trade" in something even only slightly larger than a hamlet or small village, there needs to be some regulation. In order to regulate one must first license.

A license is by definition a grant to do that which is illegal. The orderly trade you speak of will happen in a free market, and the current fraud, coercion, and other atrocities we find in the market place today are happening with these licensing schemes you speak of. Hardly a ringing endorsement for regulation, I would think. All markets respond to supply and demand regardless of what system is in place. In a free market this orderly trade happens through individual self interest, which is to say that if I am not happy with your product or service I have the option to stop doing business with you, and since there are no regulations or licensing schemes preventing massive competition, I have many options to choose from. This freedom places incentive on business to operate under ideal ethical standards, and of course, those who are against free trade will argue that this will only invite fraud, coercion, other atrocities, but I think I've made my point with that.

So, at this point, I disagree that we live in a tyrannical system. Our system is deeply flawed and getting more so with each passing week it seems [to me], but it falls short of tyranny, for now. What next week - or next year - will bring is something that does cause me no small amount of trepidation.

Again, I believe it is you who is taking the term tyranny way too lightly. Life under tyranny often amounts to death, and certainly death of freedom. There are five stages of diagnosed terminal illness, as listed by Elizabeth Kubler Ross; 1) denial, 2) anger, 3) bargaining 4) depression 5) acceptance. It is unclear to me if you are in denial, or have already passed this stage had your moment of anger and are now in the bargaining stage, but you are either coming very close to acceptance or not so close to it. Kubler Ross also stressed that with all terminal patients there is always hope. Hope is life, acceptance of death, or any stage prior to that acceptance is death.

I maintain hope, and at this moment I am not aware of any diagnosis made about me that claims I am terminal. I fight with hope, and strongly advocate peaceful revolution so that we may all live freely to pursue property and happiness. We do not stand a chance under the current regime, and by regime I mean the federal system that has been in place for at least 100 years now. We have the inalienable right to change that system. This is my stance.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

((snip))

That said, I'm afraid I am far too much of an idealist to agree that we are and have been living under tyranny. ((snip))

[edit on 21/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

I would suggest checking out "The end of America", it can be streamed / ordered from netflix.. it's a rude awakening history lesson of EXACT parallels between the old school infamous fascists.. and moves made by the GOP & DNC.

It's disconcerting that US party leaders have enacted many of the same policies as hitler, mussolini, stalin and lenin.. even used the same propaganda.. history repeats.

endofamericamovie.com...

Same topic, but the movie is better:

reply to post by GovtFlu


Again, I do not argue that we are in grave danger. I no longer believe that I am likely to die before America ceases to be America, which I did prior to the turn of the century. I assumed that would happen during my son's or [then future] grandchild's lifetime.

I just do not believe we have lost her yet.

Yet, I do not want the Religious Right, Conservative, nor the Social Democrat to wrest control. Each would conspire to take or deny something I hold no less than a fundamental right of self determination.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have the impression that you believe that any restriction is tyranny. Is this correct? Of course, with the caveat that anything that does not cause harm to someone else should have no restriction. This, you feel is more in line with the Founding Principles?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Perhaps semantics, but a T.I.N. is a business tax identification number, not a personal income tax number. Only a business is required to have a T.I.N. People are required to report their taxable income using their Social Security Number, which is not, technically, a tax identification number.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Perhaps semantics, but a T.I.N. is a business tax identification number, not a personal income tax number. Only a business is required to have a T.I.N. People are required to report their taxable income using their Social Security Number, which is not, technically, a tax identification number.

It is semantics as a T.I.N. is what makes a business owner liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax" to begin with. Without that voluntary application of a Tax Identification Number, and failing any section of the code that clearly and undeniably makes an activity liable for a tax, i.e. distillation of, or importation of alcohol, or manufacture of importation of tobacco, you would be hard pressed to point to a section of the code that would make most other business owners liable for this tax. Further, "taxable income is a term invented by Congress and comes with a specific definition. What is the difference between income and "taxable income"? Even further, there is no statute, code, or regulation that requires people to possess a Social Security Number.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings and are reliant upon the executive branch to do so, which is a position held by elected officials, which means if the people are not inclined to tolerate enforcement of judge made laws then they will remove the elected officials inclined to enforce those judge made laws.

I either do not possess enough of an understanding of my judicial and legislative branches or I have an operative misapprehension of the function and mandates of law enforcement or I may be misinterpreting your statement.

My understanding [and experience I might add] is that it is the court that determines enforcement or the invalidation of same, not the Executive Branch. And it is the Legislative Branch that passes laws which the President is to either sign or veto. The judicial branch effects day to day enforcement or change in enforcement by their various and sundry rulings.

So, I fear, I'm in need of clarification for this point as well.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe


The portion you just quoted is in response to you asserting that the courts are the biggest threat to freedom in this country. The courts do not determine what is enforced, this is wholly determined by the Executive Branch. However, if the Executive Branch, or Congress for that matter, is in contempt of court, the courts do have authority to make such a ruling. Andrew Jackson was never held in contempt of court for his willful disregard for the ruling the SCOTUS handed down in Worcester vs. Georgia. He should have been held in contempt of court for ignoring that ruling but wasn't. I did not offer Jackson's deeds as an example that should be followed, but merely quoted him to illustrate how powerless the courts actually are when the Executive Branch refuses to enforce a ruling.

The courts only power to "enforce" is that reliant on the Executive branch to do so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, "taxable income is a term invented by Congress and comes with a specific definition. What is the difference between income and "taxable income"?

As I have every confidence you know, there is income that is determined [by whim or special interest] by Congress to be taxable and income that is determined to not be taxable [by the same whim or special interest].

I think this system is arbitrary, anti-business, anti-consumer, inviting of graft and corruption, but I do not believe it is unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment clearly makes it constitutional. That said, I am a *staunch* advocate of the Fair Tax.

Even further, there is no statute, code, or regulation that requires people to possess a Social Security Number.

Right!

Which was one of my primary original points. I *could* choose to live outside the system if I *chose* to do so. Therefore, it is my premise that I do not live under tyranny in this subset of our discourse.