19 votes

Scalia To Student: If Taxes Go Too High ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’

Knoxville, Tenn. (CBS DC) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.”

Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/18/scalia-to-student-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He didn't finish his sentence:

"...but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt and give a reason for martial law to be implemented and the rounding up of supposed domestic terrorists to ensue.

[The Executive Orders are all in place so...]

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Addendum to previous comment.

Therefore, Justice Scalia is suggesting to govrenment emplyees that they should revolt when THEIR taxes get too high. The solution is to quit and get a job in the private sector. I think the rest of us could live with that! :)

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

The student asked the wrong question.

And nobody here seems to have caught it.

The question should have been:

Is the income tax constitutional when it is applied to Americans who work in the private sector?

Do a search of the word liable or liability in the tax code, then read all the definitions in their respective chapters and you will find that the average American trading his labor for a paycheck in the private sector is not liable for any income tax - unless, of course, you sign under penalty of perjury that you are a resident of Washington, D.C. Then they assume you are an "employee" of the federal government or one of its political subdivisons. the de jure States are not political subdivisions since they existed before there was a United States. And the States that joined the Union later are admitted on an equal footing woith the original thirteen States.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Taxation is too high

it is too high a price to pay to have a group of overlords that can take what they want, when they want. We must extinguish this power. Erase it from the face of the earth.

There are so many different ways to get the resources needed to accomplish projects that are valuable to more than one individual. Taxation is an ancient relic from an ancient predator. Its time to innovate our way out of this mess.

Government don't have any

Government don't have any rights, only people have rights. Governments have arbitrary legal authority they themselves are the ultimate arbiters of.

Taxes are nothing more than mafia tribute and just because your mafia is so big it can actually write it down as law and go virtually unchallenged it doesn't change anything.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Yes, government has powers, not rights

A review of the Constitution reveals (unfortunately) the numerous times that certain powers are ascribed to Congress or the President.

Government don't have rights?

Unfortunately they do. Learn civics and you shall know your adversary.

How do people who claim to love and understand liberty miss such a fundamental tenet? Libertarians need to learn the basics of their own philosophy before they'll be able to win over others.
:)

Rights vs Privileges

Rights are actions/behaviors that do not require the permission of another to act/behave.

Privileges are actions/behaviors that require the permission of another to act/behave.

Gov't gets its just power from the consent (permission) of the people.

Gov't only has Privileges.

That said the various levels of Gov't within the US exercise Privileges as if they were Rights because so few call them out on it. Therefore they in practice have assumed Rights.

Rights v privileges and consent of the governed clarified

Rights are actions that are protected by the legal system.
Natural rights are those acts granted by nature and protected by the legal system.
Legal rights are those acts granted by the legislature and protected by the legal system.
Contract rights are those acts granted by contract and protected by legal system.

I agree that the government has no natural rights beyond the right of conquest. (I can flesh this out more if you wish to get into this)

Which brings us to your next assertion that "government gets its just power from the consent of the people."
-Is the legislature obligated to obey you or are you obligated to obey the legislature...regardless of consent.
-Is the legislature obligated to obey the whole of society or is the whole of the society obligated to obey the legislature...regardless of consent.

Government doesn't work for you or your community, it GOVERNS you and your community.
The government can take what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, and it can micromanage your private affairs the way it wants. If you disobey, they will put you in a cage. If you resist, they will put you in the dirt. And they are more than happy to do so 24/7 just because they can.

Government is the entity that achieves military dominance over a society and grants itself the ability to harm with legal impunity.
Consent of the individual or the whole of society is not a factor.

No doubt you first heard of the consent premise in the DOI. Ironically, this was written to justify picking up arms to upheave the current government...in order to establish a new dominant force on this continent.

Your turn. I enjoy the conversation :)

De facto Rights

I can't disagree with your definitions if we qualify them by what is being practiced, though I'd argue that we do not have Rights since it is for all intents and purposes illegal to protect ones own rights from the Gov't.

A right being something that is unalienable. If the Govt's action or inaction can make it null, then it is not a Right in practice. That's an important thing to note as a baseline, it gives us a definition that gives us a means to test it. What it seems to me is that we have no Rights, in practice. We have Privileges where the Gov't gives or retracts them. This flies in the face of what most of us where taught and know is correct.

As more and more people begin to exercise their Rights, actual Rights, I think we will see more and more action by the Gov't that attempts to sequester and abridge those Rights. Henry Clay Dean, a Copperhead Democrat from the Civil War era wrote that "Whoever may not be tried for his crimes, invokes judgement without trial."

If those in Gov't commit crimes against those they govern, which is lawlessness, then the People will pass judgement outside the system which has proven to be Lawless.

It truly bothers me that this seems to be the track that we are on. Those in power seem to feel free of the laws and lawlessness that they invoke.

We are brothers, that is for sure.

So I will not play semantics. You're using PAYtriot language while I am using the language of civics. Nonetheless, I think we are speaking of the same concepts. Many in layman use the rights vs privileges when attempting to make legal distinctions, but that language is not robust enough for legal nuances. I am going to stick with what I know to finish out this conversation. Please grant me the indulgence when reading the following.

It's not a right unless it is protected by the legal system... regardless of where it comes from.
If the legal system in place does not respect an act that is sourced in nature...then it is not a right, even though it should be.

The legal concept of unalienable rights is an act that is granted by nature that the legislature must respect. All acts that the legislature must respect without qualification, regardless of where they are sourced, are known as Absolute Rights...wink-wink.

It is very rare for a legal system to acknowledge unalienable natural rights and natural rights because such an acknowledgement greatly reduces the power of government in that area.
---------------------------------------------
"I can't disagree with your definitions if we qualify them by what is being practiced"
-And has been practiced for thousands of years.

"I'd argue that we do not have Rights since it is for all intents and purposes illegal to protect ones own rights from the Gov't."
-If you are engaging in an act that is not respected by the will of the legislature, then you are correct.
-However, if the legislature respects an act, and a cop denies you, then you can take him to court and settle up. Perfectly legal to do that. And rare, but it does happen on occasion.
-Or, if a constitution respects an act, but the legislature or cop denies you, then you can go to court and settle up. Rare, but it does happen on occasion.

"This flies in the face of what most of us where taught and know is correct."
-Most civics does. Shocking to find out that the individual is not free after years and years of being told that we are free. Shocking to find out the government doesn't work for you after years and years of being told it does. Shocking to find out that we are not the government after years and years of being told that we are. Not in a semantic, not just in practice, but in the actual legal mechanics of our system.

"If those in Gov't commit crimes against those they govern"
-Do you mean the government not respecting the constitution or the executive branch not respecting the legislative branch? Or do you mean the government not respecting "unalienable" rights? Because as far as the legal system that we live under is concerned they are not committing crimes. The federal government is in charge of determining what is and what is not constitutional. And the state governments are in charge of the same for their portion.

"It truly bothers me that this seems to be the track that we are on"
-This is the way the system has worked for thousands of years. What is so different about today? I hope society has had enough of overlords and decides to neuter government and embolden the individual so that our people can flourish.

The Legal System is Subjective

The Legal System is Subjective (subject to arbitrary influence), so if Rights are defined by the Legal System, there can be no Absolute Rights. It may be in practice that Absolute or Objective Rights cannot be achieved in nature. They will always have some degree of subjective influence. We can however define Rights Objectively in the abstract and then do our best to codify a legal system that observes them.

This is where the definition for Rights and Privileges I use come into play. They are the most objective definitions that I have come across, however, they are a bit clumsy as they lead to questions like "How do you determine when permission of another is required?" This gets into ownership of oneself and fruits of ones labor which must be defined as well. Still the most satisfying definitions IMO, though, I do like that you interjected the legal system because I was not imparting enough influence from that area. I was working in the 'Should Be' domain and not including enough 'As Is'.

One of the keys to codifying a legal system that observes Rights is MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. If the Gov't fails to observe these natural rights (which is a destruction of the mission of Gov't) then the consequences must include the ability to rid ourselves of that Gov't. We must be able to declare the Contract VOID if certain conditions are not met or maintained, like our Rights just as a Gov't can declare it VOID if the citizenry fail to pay for the system.

very good steve, my turn

now we're down to it...again:
"If the Gov't fails to observe these natural rights (which is a destruction of the mission of Gov't) then the consequences must include the ability to rid ourselves of that Gov't. We must be able to declare the Contract VOID if certain conditions are not met or maintained"

-where do you get the idea that governments mission is to observe these natural rights. Grade school maybe? Government's mission is whatever government wants it to be at the moment. This could also be in the should be domain-?
-government is the entity that has achieved military dominance over a society and has granted itself the ability to harm with impunity. It does as it pleases. It claims the power to take everything you hold dear and has no obligation to provide anything in return. Let alone, respect your natural rights.
-I don't know what contract you are speaking of, but government is not instituted by contract. It is instituted by its ability to cause the greatest amount of violence upon the society it dominates. You have no legal way to declare the government void. It takes some kind of an upheaval to declare a government void.

Many try to reconcile the lies they were taught about government with the reality of civics. I will cut out all the garbage and make it clear:
1) We are not the government
2) The government doesn't work for you
3) The government is a legally separate and distinct entity that has claimed the power to harm society and you individually with legal impunity.
4) You are not buying services when the government taxes you:
a) Taxes are taken from you regardless of your consent.
b)The government has no legal obligation to provide anything in return for the taxes it takes.
5) The courts are instituted by the government and are bound to obey government statutes and regulations.

I'll get back with you on your other posts. I enjoy the conversation :)

Declaration of Independence

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

This is where I bring up the Should Be, and the As Is. You are describing the As Is, I am describing the Should Be.

There may not be a legal statute for abolishing Gov't, but there is Precedence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

Let's stop a moment and find out if our Should Be Gov't is the same, similar, or at odds with each other. I hold that the Declaration of Independence provides a very good mission for gov't, to secure our Natural Rights. I think you do as well based upon your statements that the Legal System is supposed to secure these Rights.

The Constitution is a contract. It is a written agreement that lays out the scope of Gov't and defines the fundamental processes and gives instructions on the nature by which it can be changed. If you don't like Contract, then can you agree that it is a type a Service Agreement, given Art 1 Sec 8, 9, 10 and the Bill of Rights? What it is supposed to do and what it is forbidden to do?

I'm not attempting to reconcile what I was taught in school. You said you were interested in collaborating with others in the attempt to Innovate Liberty. We need a Should Be, or Vision for what Liberty looks like and how it will be secured. While I like the notion of Anarchy, or Ipsem-archy (Self Rule rather than No Rule), but I think Minarchy is the most reasonable step towards Liberty. Getting to Anarchy or Ipsem-archy is too great a leap without inviting so much chaos that the masses once again demand Central Planning.

Our As Is situation is as you have described. We need a fairly objective Should Be (destination) for us to build a bridge to. Any objections?

Yes: Should be vs As Is

"I hold that the Declaration of Independence provides a very good mission for gov't, to secure our Natural Rights"
-Yes

"The Constitution is a contract."
-No
"A type of service agreement"
-No, besides, that's another way of restating a contract :)
--Congress is not compelled to do ANYTHING, they only have the option/the power to do ART 1 sec 8 and art 4 sec 3 clause 2 items.
---But it should be
"There may not be a legal statute for abolishing Gov't, but there is Precedence."
--Yes, the same that there has always been, exactly what Jefferson did after penning the DOI...to show the dominant military force that they're no longer the dominant military force and change the rulership.

"We need a Should Be"
-http://www.dailypaul.com/298184/logical-proof-for-individual-liberty
-Yes,of course. and it should be spelled out in a black and white legally binding contract/service agreement with very specific duties and restrictions. To our shared detriment, it is not that way right now, but it should be:

1) It is possible to establish an entity that handles the mundane day- to-day tasks of managing certain infrastructure, but does not have the power to manage our daily affairs/point weapons at us/take as they please. Much like the service agreement idea you spoke of earlier.

2)It is possible to establish a judicial system that is not in the hands of a government, in order to handle the disputes that come about as people bump into each other in the normal course of living and trading. This would allow us to handle our disputes without regressing to the hatfield and mccoys.
*Many forget, or don't know, that courts and governments have different origins. It is true that governments typically take over and control courts, but it need not be that way.

3)It is also possible to establish a defense infrastructure that would allow the individuals who wish to defend the community to do so as they please.

And to be clear, I agree that the DOI served two purposes:
1) The operative law (that remains law to this day) that severed ties to the crown.
2) The non operative philosophy and rhetoric that was meant to describe what government should be and gain support from the governments of the world.

It was a step in the right direction.

Good to hear back from you.

'Too high'

To what statistic?

There is no principle behind unethical coercion, and all taxation should be abolished

More here
http://facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

The principle is one of domination

government is an entity that establishes military dominance over a society and grants itself the ability to harm with impunity.

they can take what they want, when they want and do not have an obligation to provide anything in return

>

Partial disagreement: I see government as an embodied apparatus, whose function is to distill conscience.

Hence when negotiating principle within public domain, individuals can choose ethically or unethically, however there still is a virtual standard by which to exercise judgment [ex. 'thou shall not steal']

I don't see the dissagreement

A mechanism to enforce conscience...who's conscience? the lawmakers. That's exactly what government has always been, a tool of the lawmaker to bend society to its will. A militant entity that forces the conscience of the legislature onto a society with legal impunity.

Basic civics.

The one attribute that distinguishes government from any entity found in society is the ability to harm with legal impunity.

Observe:
1) You cannot bring an action against a lawmaker who passed a statute that harmed you.
2) You cannot bring an action against an officer who enforced a statute that harmed you.
3) You cannot bring an action against a judge who upholds a statute that harmed you.
That is the ability to harm with legal impunity.

The lawmaker can take what it wants, when it wants, how it wants according to its conscience. And it is not obligated to give you anything in return. If you do not obey, then they can put you in a cage. If you resist, they can put you in the ground. And they are more than happy to do so 24/7.

How do they have this power? How is one group of men able to subjugate another? Harm them at their pleasure? Take as they please? Because they have achieved military dominance.

IF taxes go to high? They

IF taxes go to high? They already are and we should have revolted in 1913.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

Revolts need leaders.

Perhaps you should lead the way. Usually those that begin revolts wind up being the martyrs that don't make it till peace on the other side.

Revolts won't happen until enough people have nothing left to lose. You haven't revolted yet, so I am guessing you don't want to lose what you have. I get tired of hearing people make the same comment you just did, asking others to start their revolution for them. Put up or shut up on the revolt talk, violence doesn't solve anything. The more effective course of action is to get everyone to recognize a tyrant as a tyrant, and remove their consent.

scawarren's picture

He didn't say anything about

He didn't say anything about violence in that comment from what I could tell. I agree that a revolution needs to happen in the minds of American people first but then what? We can remove our consent but that doesn't mean they won't force their will on us. Wouldn't it be considered self-defense at that point?

Individualism-
To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings

He didn't say violence, but I

He didn't say violence, but I think it is pretty commonly accepted that the term "revolt" means that. If you don't mean it that way, use a different word. Every definition of the word I just pulled up includes violence.

I do believe in self defense of course, and I suppose it is up to the person contemplating the use of force as a form of defense to decide for themselves at what point the need to self defense is more important than the very real possibility of injury, death, imprisonment, and losing their family.

I don't have much respect for calls to revolt, when an individual has obviously not reached the point that they are willing to do so. Lead by example, or shut up, that is my personal view.

Actually taxes weren't high

Actually taxes weren't high in 1913. You were only taxed 1% over what is equivalent to about $50K today.

It really wasn't until during and after WWII taxes began to rise.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...