Context items:
William Bradford
History of Income Tax
Ecclesiates 6

To say I have been busy is to simply observe the obvious. The next few weeks are going to be increasingly interesting as the house viewing is in a couple of days and the closing is next week. The day after the closing, I see a cardiologist to decide what to do with my BP. All that is to acknowledge that I have been playing with this idea, just haven’t sat long enough to get it typed. This will be the scenario for a bit as the water is ready for the new house, but not the electricity and farther away is consideration of internet and cable.
There was a concept in a previous post’s link that caught my attention and I’ll copy it here:

If they believed that their rights came from nature, not from government, they believed the same thing of their property, as people had believed from biblical and classical times and as Locke had reemphasized in the modern era. In explaining the origin of property rights, Locke had remarked of the State of Nature that “in the beginning all the World was America,” where people create property by working “the wild Common of Nature.” Their labor made the land and its produce their own, since “labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things, we enjoy in this World”—in fact, he calculated, “of the Products of the Earth, useful to the Life of Man 9/10 are the effects of labour.”

and

They knew what it had cost to assure, as Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder put it, that “[t]he poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” Or as the Jacobean chief justice Sir Edward Coke, whose Institutes of the Laws of England every colonial lawyer had read, phrased it more succinctly 150 years earlier: “A man’s house is his castle.”

Note that with the responsibility came the ability to maintain the armament to perform the task. This was the mindset of the founders where each individual was part of the militia and responsible for their own defense as well as contributors to the common defense. There were no police. That was a foreign concept in an area where one’s own responsibility was taken to include defense. The judges were there for disputes. Remember also, this time allowed dueling and men would have to defend their words. (Imagine if that were allowed today with Biden…)
This changed with the civil war when the government was ascribed increased power and authority not allowed by those who designed it. Per the History of Income Tax page, note that there was an income tax and inheritance tax applied to pay for the civil war which was later declared unconstitutional. The reasoning for the declaration seems technical, but I still note its removal until the constitutional amendment in the 1900’s.

The amendment put into law a new relationship between the government and the individual. Commercial interactions were still taxed, but now the government was able to tax the efforts of a person’s labor. In effect, this said that a person’s efforts were no longer their own, but the proceeds permitted by the government. An individual could no longer claim that their home was their castle and Kelo put into effect that concept that whatever produced the most for the government was the legal route they were allowed to take. The individual no longer worked for themselves, but for the benefit of the government receiving the rewards of their efforts. In the macro sense, this is slavery.

Our present regime seems to have no problem with slavery as a concept. Consider the promotion of the idea of “right to health care”. If that was truly a right, it could only exist by enslaving and removing the labors of the medical professionals. The removal of one’s labor was noted six thousand years ago to be a grievous evil. The longer sentiment is as follows:

I have seen another evil under the sun, and it weighs heavily on mankind: God gives some people wealth, possessions and honor, so that they lack nothing their hearts desire, but God does not grant them the ability to enjoy them, and strangers enjoy them instead. This is meaningless, a grievous evil.

Our founders knew the Bible and the concepts therein. They also knew their history and how the Pilgrims almost starved under socialism and prospered under free enterprise where one’s labor was their own. How can a nation adopt a failed philosophy, look at the 100% failure rate, and expect a different result? Simple. Lies. Those who don’t know history are cursed to repeat it.

Advertisements