A Jacobin's Perspective on the IRS

[Dr. Caligari]

First and foremost repeatedly arguing its the law, a judge said this or that, is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't make anything right and it doesn't prove anything. It proves nothing other than someone in power said something.

Then why do all the tax defiers come onto this board and argue that the IRS' position on the income tax is not the law? Why do they (try to) cite statutes and court decisions? (Look at Spartacus's first post on this thread for an example).

If this were a board where people debated whether our tax laws are fair or just or economically optimal, I wouldn't be here. I'm not interested or well-read enough in political theory and economics to offer valid opinions. I am a lawyer. As I have explained to you in the past, Steve, that means that, in a very real sense, I make my living by correctly predicting how courts will rule on a given set of facts. (Remember that quote from O.W. Holmes I always cite at you.) I am not perfect at making those predictions-- no one is perfect-- but I do well enough that people pay my employer lots of money for my time. So when I see people come on here and say collosally stupid things about what the statutes and court decisions "really mean" (like you used to do about the 861 argument), I enjoy debunking them.

Is it the law? I can give you a pretty educated opinion. Is it fair? Is it just? Take it to Ranting & Raving. I won't respond--that's not my thing-- but others will.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

The problem with your post, Darkest, is that you failed to acknowledge the rule of law in this country - in this instance you have failed to acknowledge that there is a method or an ability for the people to change laws that they don't agree with. And this happens on a regular basis. At the federal level, every two years there is an election where the people get the right to vote in representatives who have the authority and power to change laws. And they get an additonal vote every six years to send senators to Washington, D.C with the same power to change laws. That right has continued on, in some form or fashion for the last 220 or so years and I expect it to continue. Therefore, there is no need for people to consider disobeying a law that they disagree with, all they need to do is to vote for representatives that share the same outlook about that law.

I don't fail to see that. People have a method wherever they may be to change laws they don't agree with, they don't even need the method you specified, they can choose their own method. Either way you are being governed, you are being told what to do, and it sounds like you are doing it to the letter and agree with the terms.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Stalin inherited a one party dictatorship by ruthlessly killing any and all opposition.

Hitler gamed the parlimentary process and sold the S.A. (who helped him to get near the pinnacle of power) down the river to get the support of the Wermacht.

Plus, the Germans did not have an Electoral College like we do.

Last I looked, there are two major political parties in the US and no one is ruthlessly killing their opposition, or selling several hundred thousand of their loyal supporters down the river to curry the favor of the Army, nor are we scapegoating the Jews for all of our problems.

I fail to see the point. What he was doing was 100% legal. Just like the Europeans coming to America and slaughtering Indians and spreading disease. Just because killing is involved doesn't make it a legal, what Hitler did was 100% legal.

[Famspear]

No see, most people do not make direct comparisons to those regimes as if we are just like them, you're just attempting to construct a strawman. People like me use them to shoot your arguments down in flames just like Dark did.

No, see, Dark did not shoot my "arguments" down in flames. And I am not "attempting" to construct a "strawman." However, you are. See below.

What Hitler did was legal, what Stalin did was legal. You attempt to say "the law says" as if that somehow adds validity to the acts being done.

No, see, that's not what I do. When tax protesters argue that federal income taxation is not legally valid, I point out that it IS LEGALLY VALID.

Your use of the phrase "adds validity" without inserting the word "legally" between those two words highlights the chronic problem you exhibit here in Quatloos, Steve. In this particular sentence, you are the one confusing legal validity and moral validity, by failing to clearly distinguish between the two concepts.

The fact that I say something is legally valid does not necessarily mean that I am saying it is morally valid. The law books of this country may indeed contain some legally binding rules -- valid laws -- that you or I or someone else may find repugnant.

The law does not make something right.

Bingo, Steve! You just about got it! But then you lose it again, below.

Hitler is a good example to expose all sorts of flaws in arguments people like you make.

No, "Hitler" does not "expose" any "flaws" in my arguments.

For instance you claim that things can not happen in an elected democracy.

No, I do not claim that "things can not happen in an elected democracy." Things -- both good and bad, both legal and illegal, happen all the time. How old are you, anyway?

Germany was a democracy and people willingly allowed someone to obtain power that ended up abusing millions.

That's right.

Most of the abuse was hidden from the citizens.

That's probably right, too.

German citizens would have laughed at you if you tried to claim Hitler was on a path to destroy their nation and abuse the people on a mass level after being elected. People willingly gave up their freedoms as they do now, and people like you as they did back then defended the benefits of giving up those freedoms.

Yes, that's right, and that's why you and I and all of us must be vigilant to defend our freedoms. But that does not mean that we must be delusional about what the law actually is.

People like you defended the hard hand of government because "they were elected".

No, "people like me" did not do that. And by pointing out that federal income taxation is legally valid, I am not "defending the government". Not in the sense in which you are thinking, Steve. You still seem to want to flash back and forth between a sort of glimmering, faint, awareness of the difference between moral validity and legal validity, on the one hand, and confusion about the same thing. THE MERE FACT THAT I EXPLAIN THAT THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS LEGALLY VALID DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH THE LAW OR BELIEVE IT IS A "GOOD" LAW. THE MERE FACT THAT I EXPLAIN THAT THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS LEGALLY VALID DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM "SUPPORTING" A PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PRACTICE IN THE SENSE IN WHICH YOU ARE THINKING.

(I hope you can read what I just read. For the umpteenth time, please let it sink in.)

Almost all of those supporters supported their government up to the very end and still had no clue that their government was involved in such vile acts.

Ah, in this scene we find that Steve discovers vile acts on the part of government employees, and thinks that the rest of us are going to fall for his rhetoric to the effect that no one else has a clue about it. Steve knows the Ultimate Truth, and now he's ENLIGHTENING US.

Put a cork in it, Steve.

They like you refuse to accept an elected government was capable of such things.

Wahhhhh wahhhhh. Grow up Steve.

No, Steve, now I do see a "strawman" being erected. YOU are creating the strawman. The rest of us here are not saying that at all.

Maybe you should learn from history....instead of ignoring it.

No, Steve, maybe you should learn from history. And maybe you should approach these things from a logical perspective, rather than from an emotional one.

First and foremost repeatedly arguing its the law, a judge said this or that, is meaningless nonsense.

No, it's not meaningless nonsense. If it were meaningless nonsense, I would be out of a job. Which I am not.

It doesn't make anything right and it doesn't prove anything.

Wahhhh, wahhhhh. Wahhhhh. Grow up, Steve. Neither I nor any other Quatloos regular is arguing that the fact that something is the law makes it right. Again, you are showing us that your refusal to accept what we say about federal income taxation is based on your impure motives -- the motive being that you are anti-government, and that in your mind what you perceive as the "moral invalidity" of government (or at least some aspects of government) must EQUATE to LEGAL invalidity. You are wrong.

It proves nothing other than someone in power said something.

No, you're wrong. The law is what the court rules the law to be. So sorry.

If you believe it proves something then you must believe those regimes were just as valid.

No, you're wrong. The rest of us do not argue that accepting the law as being the law means that Nazi Germany was a morally "valid" regime. Again, Steve, you are flipping back to the untenable position of arguing, in effect, that a regime cannot be both legally valid and morally invalid.

They too had laws, courts, scholars and citizens who did not openly argue what was happening was wrong. In fact, anybody that mattered supported them, that is, up and until it was too late.

Wahhh wahhhh wahhhh. Steve is comparing us to the scholars in Nazi Germany, etc., etc.

Steve, ask yourself why you have these feelings.

[agent86x]

[quote="DarkestBeforeDawn"][quote="Dr. Caligari"]
Nope. You said that the people who founded this country would today be considered tax protestors. In fact, what they were protesting was taxation [i]without representation[/i]. Once they achieved independence from Great Britain and set up their own government, they proceeded to impose a whole slew of taxes, and treated anyone who protested those taxes quite harshly. (The failure to carry out the death sentences was merely the result of Washington's term ending, and his successors wanting to quiet down the rebellious Pennsylvanians).[/quote]

That is a big one in the movies isn't it. Although that was a part of it, that was not the complete story. Much of it started with the Stamp Act and having to house troops in Quarterly Act. Britain passed they Declaratory Act stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. I don't know how to make that anymore clear, all act against Britain were acts of terrorism. It doesn't matter what the Colonist disagree with, the canceled the agreement. Taxes were a part of it, but it basically comes down to being governed and agreeing with the terms.[/quote]

And you've missed the point entirely.

[The Observer]

I don't fail to see that. People have a method wherever they may be to change laws they don't agree with, they don't even need the method you specified, they can choose their own method. Either way you are being governed, you are being told what to do, and it sounds like you are doing it to the letter and agree with the terms.

But the point is that there is a method that is legal and sanctioned - it allows each citizen to protest against the law by voting in people to change the law. What you are advocating is for peope to not use the legal method and to rebel and disobey the law. In essence you are arguing for anarchy.

The next question is this: What are you going to do when a huge group of people decide they don't like the laws against robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping and murder and are going to ignore them, then decide to pay you a visit?

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Then why do all the tax defiers come onto this board and argue that the IRS' position on the income tax is not the law? Why do they (try to) cite statutes and court decisions? (Look at Spartacus's first post on this thread for an example).

If this were a board where people debated whether our tax laws are fair or just or economically optimal, I wouldn't be here. I'm not interested or well-read enough in political theory and economics to offer valid opinions. I am a lawyer. As I have explained to you in the past, Steve, that means that, in a very real sense, I make my living by correctly predicting how courts will rule on a given set of facts. (Remember that quote from O.W. Holmes I always cite at you.) I am not perfect at making those predictions-- no one is perfect-- but I do well enough that people pay my employer lots of money for my time. So when I see people come on here and say collosally stupid things about what the statutes and court decisions "really mean" (like you used to do about the 861 argument), I enjoy debunking them.

Is it the law? I can give you a pretty educated opinion. Is it fair? Is it just? Take it to Ranting & Raving. I won't respond--that's not my thing-- but others will.

In the end, the law is what the power says to do. Hitler appoints some 60lbs. striving Jew a lawyer, lawyer discusses case with Jew prisoner, lawyer goes to Hitler. Hitler says what does your client want to do? Lawyer says there no law that Jew has to get in the oven. Hitler goes I see your position. Hitler says to the lawyer, well is there law outlawing me appointing a Jew to put a lawyer in the oven. Lawyer frowns and thinks for a moment, says to Hitler, I will make sure he is on time.

100% legal, 100% justified.

The law is whatever the power wants to make it, the law is whatever the governed are willing to agree with or obey. It doesn't matter if it's written in a volume of Title such and such.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

But the point is that there is a method that is legal and sanctioned - it allows each citizen to protest against the law by voting in people to change the law. What you are advocating is for peope to not use the legal method and to rebel and disobey the law. In essence you are arguing for anarchy.

The next question is this: What are you going to do when a huge group of people decide they don't like the laws against robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping and murder and are going to ignore them, then decide to pay you a visit?

You arguing with me, I didn't make the rules. I am just telling you what the rules are.

"But the point is that there is a method that is legal and sanctioned - it allows each citizen to protest against the law by voting in people to change the law."

Every system has a method to change the law -- you are free to make any system you choose but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it -- the Law does not have to listen to your method of changing anything.

"The next question is this: What are you going to do when a huge group of people decide they don't like the laws against robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping and murder and are going to ignore them, then decide to pay you a visit?"

I fail to see what that has to do with what I have said. The law can actually make those things legal to do.

[SteveSy]

No, see, that's not what I do. When tax protesters argue that federal income taxation is not legally valid, I point out that it IS LEGALLY VALID.

Your use of the phrase "adds validity" without inserting the word "legally" between those two words highlights the chronic problem you exhibit here in Quatloos, Steve. In this particular sentence, you are the one confusing legal validity and moral validity, by failing to clearly distinguish between the two concepts.

The point is, which you refuse to accept or ignore, it wouldn't have mattered if what they did was really illegal. I'm pretty sure many of the things Hitler and his cronies did was illegal under German law. I'm also pretty sure that hardly any citizens or any judges claimed what he was doing was illegal. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume many of his acts were deemed legitimate by judges even though just a decade prior under the same laws they would have been held illegal and unjust. In short it doesn't matter what some judge or official says is valid under the law, without more they are nothing but opinions. They are just people, just like you and I. Simply because they said something is meaningless to me, as it is with anyone who values their individuality rather than becoming nothing more than a drone willing to go down any path they decide to take you down.

[SteveSy]

"The next question is this: What are you going to do when a huge group of people decide they don't like the laws against robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping and murder and are going to ignore them, then decide to pay you a visit?"

I fail to see what that has to do with what I have said. The law can actually make those things legal to do.

The irony of it is the wording in the law doesn't even have to change. If you accept the theory posited here all it would take is a group of people labeled "judge" to say its legal and by fiat alone it is done.

[Famspear]

No, see, that's not what I do. When tax protesters argue that federal income taxation is not legally valid, I point out that it IS LEGALLY VALID.

Your use of the phrase "adds validity" without inserting the word "legally" between those two words highlights the chronic problem you exhibit here in Quatloos, Steve. In this particular sentence, you are the one confusing legal validity and moral validity, by failing to clearly distinguish between the two concepts.

The point is, which you refuse to accept or ignore, it wouldn't have mattered if what they did was really illegal. I'm pretty sure many of the things Hitler and his cronies did was illegal under German law. I'm also pretty sure that hardly any citizens or any judges claimed what he was doing was illegal. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume many of his acts were deemed legitimate by judges even though just a decade prior under the same laws they would have been held illegal and unjust. In short it doesn't matter what some judge or official says is valid under the law, without more they are nothing but opinions. They are just people, just like you and I. Simply because they said something is meaningless to me, as it is with anyone who values their individuality rather than becoming nothing more than a drone willing to go down any path they decide to take you down.

When you say "it wouldn't have mattered if what they did was really illegal", what is the "it" that wouldn't "matter"?? What are you driving at?

You say that "it doesn't matter what some judge or official says is valid under the law, without more they are nothing but opinions," what are you talking about? Asked another way:

1. What is it that you believe must be present in order for a judge's ruling to be transformed from a mere "opinion" to a legally correct statement of what the law is? In other words, what is the "more" that you are looking for?

2. What exactly do you mean when you say that a judge's ruling in a court of law is "nothing but an opinion"?

[Dr. Caligari]

Steve:

Once and for all, if you ever post that the income tax is unfair, economically inefficient, unjust, tyrannical or inhumane, you will get no argument from me (except possibly a request to the moderators to move it to Ranting & Raving).

If you post that the income tax is barred by some statute or court decision, I reserve the right to tell you that you are wrong. If you think that statutes and court decisions are irrelevant, stop relying on them in so many of your posts.

[SteveSy]

1. What is it that you believe must be present in order for a judge's ruling to be transformed from a mere "opinion" to a legally correct statement of what the law is? In other words, what is the "more" that you are looking for?

Some rational basis for the "opinion". Too many opinions are based in personal belief of what the law should be rather than fact, hence the Holmes method of manufacturing law (legal realism). I posted an example here several times of where I traced every single court cited in an opinion and then the courts they cited to back up their opinion and so on and so forth. As was shown no court ever once backed up their opinion with anything factual other than "because we said so".

btw, there have been many opinions of the court that I have disliked the outcome of but accepted the rationale behind them.

2. What exactly do you mean when you say that a judge's ruling in a court of law is "nothing but an opinion"?

That is what its called isn't it an opinion? It has only been by the likes of people like Holmes that judges have turned their personal opinions in to law rather than actually basing their opinions on what the law is and what the legislatures were trying to accomplish, and not more, when they wrote the law. I have never accepted the concept of judge made law. Judges merely offer opinions on the law they don't make it, to do so is a violation of the constitution due to the fact that the power resides solely with congress.

What was once the concept of a generally accepted opinion based on evidence of the law has been turned on its head in to the creation of law itself. It is rational to not regurgitate well founded research of the law in question. It's not rational to accept an opinion of law as law just because a "judge" had that opinion. A precedent that goes against reason does not bind.

[Famspear]

1. What is it that you believe must be present in order for a judge's ruling to be transformed from a mere "opinion" to a legally correct statement of what the law is? In other words, what is the "more" that you are looking for?

Some rational basis for the "opinion". Too many opinions are based in personal belief of what the law should be rather than fact, hence the Holmes method of manufacturing law (legal realism). I posted an example here several times of where I traced every single court cited in an opinion and then the courts they cited to back up their opinion and so on and so forth. As was shown no court ever once backed up their opinion with anything factual other than "because we said so".

btw, there have been many opinions of the court that I have disliked the outcome of but accepted the rationale behind them.

2. What exactly do you mean when you say that a judge's ruling in a court of law is "nothing but an opinion"?

That is what its called isn't it an opinion? It has only been by the likes of people like Holmes that judges have turned their personal opinions in to law rather than actually basing their opinions on what the law is and what the legislatures were trying to accomplish, and not more, when they wrote the law. I have never accepted the concept of judge made law. Judges merely offer opinions on the law they don't make it, to do so is a violation of the constitution due to the fact that the power resides solely with congress.

What was once the concept of a generally accepted opinion based on evidence of the law has been turned on its head in to the creation of law itself. It is rational to not regurgitate well founded research of the law in question. It's not rational to accept an opinion of law as law just because a "judge" had that opinion. A precedent that goes against reason does not bind.

Let me guess: Your view is that when, you, SteveSy, believe that there is "some rational basis" for the opinion, then there is such a rational basis - and when you, SteveSy, believe there is no rational basis, then there is no rational basis. You yourself decide the law for yourself, as you said here in Quatloos last year. So, even if you dislike the outcome, the court's opinion can be "valid" in your mind -- but only where you yourself also conclude that there is "some rational basis" for the opinion.

And in your mind, it's "not rational to accept an opinion of law as law just because a "judge" had that opinion" - even though, under the U.S. legal system, the rule has always been that the law is what the judge rules the law to be. And you take the position that a "precedent that goes against reason does not bind" -- which really means that a precedent that goes against what you, SteveSy contend is reason does not bind -- which of course is false, as precedents do in fact bind in the real world of law. The binding effect of a court ruling does not depend upon whether you, Steve, or I, or the guy at the corner convenience store, believe the opinion comports with "reason".

Steve, you continue to cling miserably to your view -- and it's a view shared by tax protesters in general -- that the real rules of law are not somehow "not really real," and that there is some sort of "more real" law somehow not being followed in our legal system. In effect, you (and tax protesters in general) are really using words that real legal scholars use -- words such as "law" and "binding" and so on -- to describe something that does not really exist: the imaginary "SteveSy law." The "SteveSy law" "exists" only in your own mind and, to the extent your ideas comport with some other tax protester, in that individual's mind. To paraphrase Daniel B. Evans, what you are talking about is an imaginary set of rules that you seem to believe is floating all around us somewhere, existing independently of the rulings of courts of law who render decisions that do not comport with your personal vision of what is "rational."

You are wrong.

As long as you cling to that misery, you will be miserable every time you think about what you believe "law" to be. Like the losers at losthorizons.com and other protester web sites, you will never be happy. Deep down inside, you will always feel disaffected, disenfranchised, disconnected, disconcerted. Reason? Because the reality of law will not correspond to your strongly held, persistent belief about what reality should be. The courts will continue to rule "against" you (i.e., will continue to "fail" to follow your train of "logic"). The system will continue to operate in what you believe to be an irrational manner (at least, with respect to those court decisions that you personally feel are irrational). If you continue in this way, you will never truly know the law in the proper way -- because you will not accept that law -- the real law of the United States of America as a political entity, including the validity of court rulings you believe are not grounded in rationality -- is not something dependent upon or subject to your own personal view of rationality.

In short, you will not be happy about this "law" situation as long as you continue to embrace the delusion that "law" could somehow be something that you, Steve, yourself could decide or determine for yourself, rather what law is really is. Law is something that exists independently of -- and in many cases in spite of the absence of -- what you personally perceive to be "rationality".

[Paul]

That is what its called isn't it an opinion? It has only been by the likes of people like Holmes that judges have turned their personal opinions in to law rather than actually basing their opinions on what the law is and what the legislatures were trying to accomplish, and not more, when they wrote the law.

Like most tax protestors, stevesy doesn't seem to realize that words can have different meanings, even though so many of their arguments are based on switching meanings in mid-argurment.

I have never accepted the concept of judge made law.

So stevesy doesn't accept the common law. And yet his entire argument that the 16th amendment doesn't allow the income tax as currently enacted and enforced is based on the Brushaber "opinion". He so easily switches between rejecting judges' opinions and using them to argue that statutes and the constitution don't mean what they actually say, anyone who tries to follow him without taking airsickness pills first deserves what they get.

[grixit]

Actually, i really enjoyed SteveSy Law, it was one of my favorite shows.

[SteveSy]

precedent that goes against reason does not bind

Actually that's an old common law maxim.

even though, under the U.S. legal system, the rule has always been that the law is what the judge rules the law to be.

No, just your imagination. btw, try and read the constitution sometime, I would dump the crackerjack version you have. Only congress has the power to make federal laws in this country. Now, if you arrive in front of that court the likely outcome will be the same as was ruled on a similar case concerning the law in question but that doesn't change the law nor does it make the law different in any way. It could just as easily be interpreted another way in another court or even in the same court at a later time. The law remains the same until changed by congress. Judges don't make law at best their opinions are based on evidence of the law, see Swift v. Tyson 41 U.S. 1. If no evidence exists to support such an opinion then the opinion is baseless. It hasn't always been the way you claim it has. It wasn't until later, around the self proclaimed deity Holmes took the bench that things started really changing and judge's took on the role of god like status.

[Gregg]

I'm not a lawyer, but really Steve, did you get beat up a lot in middle school? Yes, Congress makes the law, but because some people will always find a way to argue how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, someone has to make a BINDING opinion when nutcases try to argue the meaning of includes, employee, or all the other patently crazy arguments tax protesters make, as well as what are valid definitive decisions on what the law means. Rather than let the rabble decide, we let Judges and courts decide, and while I will admit some irrational outcomes have ensued, for the most part it's tough to argue that the system isn't a rational one. And I'd point out that in matters of worthy importance, the courts never end up being the decision of one judge. Think about it, in the case of a tax protester. there are several layers of administrative review, then tax court, then a district court, then a review by a panel of the district court, then appeals courts, also a decision there can be reviewed by a panel of the court, then finally decided by the SCOTUS, which is a panel of 9 appointed over a period decades by members of both political parties and who no one can really argue are not representative cross section of legal views...so your "one Judge" by the time an issue has been taken all the way through the system is more likely a few dozen Judges, who may not agree with YOU but nonetheless are educated in the law and have been approved by the Congress. Again, it's easy to argue the Dred Scot case was an immoral decision and a travesty of justice, you do have to admit that the system does the right thing a good portion of the time, works a lot better than either anarchy or mob rule which seem to be the only solutions you offer. We've gone 220 years with this system and only had to have a war to overrule the courts once, not too bad. When we start letting the wingnuts like Ed Brown start making definitive decisions, we'll all be dead in a decade.

My apologies to my learned members of the bar if I've made any mistakes in my narrative description of the legal process, but I do hold it's close enough to correct to as not to matter. And to the moron with a thesaurus who started this thread I would only add, I DO have a PhD in economics and haven't got a clue what the hell your point is.

[SteveSy]

you do have to admit that the system does the right thing a good portion of the time, works a lot better than either anarchy or mob rule which seem to be the only solutions you offer.

Yes I will agree on things relating to small issues. As far as the issues like the commerce clause that shape the power of the federal government and affect the fundamental design of our country, no, they haven't done a good job. In fact I would argue they have seriously eroded the foundation laid to protect our individual freedoms and state sovereignty, basically the core of what the constitution was created to protect.

btw, I'm not arguing for mob rule or anarchy a happy medium is what I want. People on here act as if when a judge speaks the waters part. They're simply people and just because they claim something is this way or that doesn't change what it really is. If it's baseless nonsense then its nonsense and people should say so regardless of who they are. People should be asking where's the support for this absurdity instead of saying "well, he's a judge what he says is law".

[LDE]

Returning to the post that began this thread ...

Spartacus, part of the difficulty you're having here is that you seem to be using your own private definition for certain terms. For example, when you say "Jacobin," a term alien to contemporary U.S. politics and rooted in the French Revolution, I picture someone who supports stripping the upper class of their property at gunpoint and redistributing it to the masses. But that doesn't seem to be your position. One might think a "Jacobin" would favor high income taxation and the Communist Manifesto.

The argument against the IRS and income tax is easy. It may be legal in a convoluted way but it required an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

So did electing senators by popular vote. So did the abolition of poll taxes (in the sense of a tax exacted from voters). Would you prefer we go back to appointed senators, and a tax on voting?

In other words, the Founding Fathers made a mistake.

They made a lot of mistakes. Consider the poorly worded Second Amendment. In fact, consider that the Bill of Rights was not in the Constitution to begin with, a "mistake" immediately recognized and corrected in the First Congress.

I'm really tired of people holding up the creaky old Constitution of 1789 as some kind of sacred text. By now it's a kluge that barely functions as the basis for a 21st-century republic. The Electoral College turns presidential politics into a farce in which a few strategic states control the whole battle, the less popular of two candidates can win, and a third-party challenger can throw the whole thing into the House. The absurd composition of the upper house, in which Wyoming gets the same vote as California, can't even be remedied by amendment, and the whole two-house structure, meant to mimic England where a House of Lords frustrated popular democracy, means a lot of corrupt legislation gets sneaked in via conference committee. The Bill of Rights never envisioned modern telecommunications. Need I go on?

For example, I searched Internal Revenue Agent on http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/

My job requires me to search the CFR on occasion. They just recently got the software functioning more or less successfully. Before that, it was like a box of chocolates (you were never sure what you were gonna git). If you're relying on search results turning up a piece of trivia as the basis for a legal theory, I recommend you actually visit a library. My state's law library is quite helpful even over the phone. Try yours out and see if you don't get different results.

My only contention is that as technology efficiencies increase, eventually the necessity for money will decrease.

I doubt it, since money is used for purposes other than utilitarian ones. For example, scorekeeping by billionaires as to which is the bigger alpha. I recently ran across a Middle Eastern proverb: "It is not enough for me to succeed; others must also fail." If you've never encountered this attitude I invite you to come visit the South for a while. No matter how many resources there are, some people won't be satisfied unless others are reduced to penury.

Barack Obama offers new hope for globalization but the only way the intellectual elite will achieves HG Wells' idealistic and noble dream of an Open Conspiracy will be through Jeffersonian globalism -- one which punishes collectivist governments by sanction or by force, one with a world commodity currency and one which ensures the Natural Rights of all Men worldwide.

Sorry, but that's pretty incoherent. The "intellectual elite" might seem coherent from the outside, but just because most everybody at Bilderberg or Davos might act as enemies of the lower classes, that doesn't mean they're all one big conspiracy. Many of them hate each other. Most of them probably haven't read Wells, let alone adopting him as a political visionary. "Jeffersonian globalism" looks like an oxymoron to me; shouldn't that be "Hamiltonian globalism"?

You'll do much better if you avoid throwing around these names from history without explaining exactly how you interpret them in today's context. Even the Hungarian economist (a communist thinker from 1961 is relevant today exactly how?) you began with seems to have only tangential relevance to your thesis, which comes off as thoroughly garbled to this reader. Please connect the dots, and leave room in constructing each step of your argument for responses before you jump to the next non sequitur.