Replying to Avatar Marakesh 𓅦

> "Income and inheritance taxes imply the denial of private property, and in that are different in principle from all other taxes. The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.’ This is no exaggeration. Take a look at the income-tax report that you are required by law to make out, and you will see that the government arbitrarily sets down the amount of your income you may have for your living, for your business requirements, for the maintenance of your family, for medical expenses, and so on. After granting these exemptions, with a flourish of generosity, the government decides what percentage of the remainder it will appropriate. The rest you may have. The percentage of the appropriation may be (and has been) raised from year to year, and the exemptions may be (and have been) lowered from year to year. The amount of your earnings that you may retain for yourself is determined by the needs of government, and you have nothing to say about it. The right of decision as to the disposition of your property rests in the government by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution."

–Frank Chodorov,

*The Income Tax: Root of All Evil* (1954)

The US #GovtIsTheProblem

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/07/lew-rockwell/why-the-income-tax-is-evil/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIncome%20and,of%20the%20Constitution.%E2%80%9D

well, from what I have been able to gather, the 16th Amendment changed absolutely nothing about the Constitutional requirement for apportionment in regards to a direct tax, which is what a personal income tax would be.

what it did do was introduce ambiguity and confusion into the subject and THAT was the murky water they have continually stirred in an incredibly successful effort to blind the american people and teick them into volunteering to surrender their property....

https://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Files/1-Cases-Cited/EXHIBIT-C-16th-Amendment-Clarification.pdf

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

> "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, *without apportionment among the several States,* and without regard to any census or enumeration." (emphasis added)

–[16th Amendment](https://w3.do/nEkkkCK_)

I don't like it, but it appears to me that apportionment doesn't matter.

what the fuck is this nostr:npub1mt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgs5mm7cz

if you had read even the first sentence of what i provided you would have noticed there are issues...

the first and OBVIOUS one is that the way you are interpreting that is TOTAL CONDITIONING so you have some work to do right there you see.

maybe actually READ IT. are you a fucking "several States"!?!?

the answer is NO. you are not a State. Therefore the requirement of apportionment for DIRECT taxes (what the income tax is) STILL exists amongst american people.

and inside of that, you will find the endless deliberations and also your freedom if you choose to value that rather than quoting the enemy and declaring it a done deal like a jaded, progarammed and hope-dashing lazy bum.

but the real lesson for you is that YOU are the problem here. And the way that you dealt with my reply ahows uou EXACTLY how it all got out of control : uninformed and ignorant folks to full of hubris, propaganda and pride(look out!) have done just what you did there for the last 111 years...

having fun yet!?

go ahead and parse the term "income" while you are at it...

received payment for your labor is NOT "income" - it is your personal PROPERTY.

the fulcrum of the western concept of "property" rests upon YOUR LABOR. That is your primary PROPERTY which you trade for money, another form of PROPERTY.

working is also a RIGHT, NOT a "privilege" , therefore it may not be licensed and taxed:

"Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California 110 US 516:

“The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.”

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973)

“… there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights”

Rights cannot be taxed. (the power to tax is the power to destroy according to the Supreme Court).

U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943): “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. … Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege … can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse.”

Also in Murdock: “a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.””

oh for fucks sake can you people focus on one thing at a time?

yer fucking SCHIZO!

The Internet have DESTROYED YOUR MINDS!

Problem is, you're not a lawyer. I'm skeptical of legal arguments made by non-lawyers. I realize lawyers are "officers of the court" and trained by and bound to the current legal system, and are unlikely to adopt legal perspectives at odds with their training. However, there's some truth to the saying that any man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm sure a lawyer could shred what you've posted above. I also have a problem with citing court cases and legal definitions when these come from the same system you oppose, and are malleable and can be changed by courts as they please. It's shifting sand.

no. the problem is that you are an arrogant asshole who wont read. and MUCH WORSE - when you do read it YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT IT - exactly how the corrupt cunts themselves do - you know - those "lawyers" that "know" - they live down the street from the doctors and nirses who "knew" in 2020 ... and all the economists who "know" about economics.

im totally for being cautious particularly with this topic - but sucking "expert" cock to AVOID responsibility and the WORK that is required to fulfill that... of course you would need the faith that the answer could be found but you seem determined to remain confused - translated as "committed to your victim status and sitting on your ass not reading and studying"

if you are lucky i will address your fucking bovine mainstream tropes and the other 50 errors of presumption and betrayals of a profound ignorance later...

but dude YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.

the errors is so fundamental and yet there you go riding on your high horse off into the plastic sunset on your lonely computer screen.... as if you said anything other than pure fucking idiocy there...

"i have a problem with citing court cases and legal definitions from same system blah blah"...

thats just one absolutely confounding example of your completely retarded, crippled and dickless take on what Law is, the history of the WORLD, and just life in general- PARTICULARLY AMERICAN LIFE.

dude what the fuck is wrong with you!?

"not a lawyer" - EXACTLY! you fucktard.

can you fucking read!? can you fucking think!? do you know how to research and learn from other who have gone further and before you?

ir its just, like, ALL YOU.

Lawyers.... a fucking appeal to lawyers!

unfuckingbelievable.

#gfy

a rejection of PRECEDENT AND DEFINITIONS!

yeah, YOU ARE THE FUCKING LAWYER AND THE JUDGE AND THE SYSTEM

let me know when you GROW UP and are resdy to take responsibility.

"i'm not an economist, but i am sure there's an economist who could shred your little white paper, commoner"

- nostr:npub1mt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgs5mm7cz the first time Satoshi showed him the Bitcoin white paper.

"The common law stands or falls on personal liberty of conscience— one's common sense of right from wrong and the freedom to act upon that sense—as one soaks his mind with Scripture. By contrast, the civil law rests on the imperial will of the state: the command of a man, or a combination of men, set forth in legislation and regulations, applied to all alike in unforgiving and ruthless precision. Thus, the controlling difference between the common law and the civil law, and the footing upon which the common law keeps going, is consonant with Scripture: God alone is LORD of the one's conscience. Neither Scripture nor the common-law tradition offers the civil law's illusion of a safe harbor in one's obedience to the state. Each person will answer to God, and to God alone, for his actions. "

"Every human choice begs judgment between good or bad, right or wrong, better or best; as such, human choice needs standards whereby to measure choices, i.e., law. The common law's rudimentary precepts and processes accord with God's Word written; where deviation occurs, the common-law provides opportunity through due process and guidance by first principles for correction. Because the common-law follows the surefootedness of fact as opposed to speculation—testing all things against not only reason, but against the facts, the senses, and reasonableness—it allows the best opportunity for God's standards to cross the chasm between divine ideals and the particular working out of those ideals. The common-law tradition still offers the process through which scriptural principles can flow into the activities our law and government, to the good of all. "

"Scripture acknowledges that God uses all men to work His purposes; thus, all are fit to take part in the common-law tradition. It remains, however, the personal and non-delegable duty of God's man to build God's Word into the fabric of his nation's consciousness, one person at a time, enlivening the common-law tradition. The common law rests not upon superior education, learning, genius of the human mind, or even human goodness; but relies, instead, upon the capability—impressed into the natural being, the soul, the common senses of every person, as set forth in Romans 2:14–15—to recognize right and wrong behavior. "

-- From Excellence of the Common Law Compared and Contrasted with Civil Law In Light of History, Nature & Scripture

Brent Allan Winters —American Common Lawyer—

Interesting. With a title like that I first thought you were citing some 19th century or earlier text, but it was originally published in 2006. I'm also kind of surprised, but not, to see the book retailing on Amazon for $250! It seems like books "they" don't want easily accessible are often priced much higher than usual. Again, I don't know if the author has been trained as a lawyer. I'm not trained in the law either but I know enough to see how current U.S. jurisprudence deviates from what the Founders instituted. Given this divergence from then until now, I question how much the common law and natural law plays a role in today's American courts.

winters books are for sale for more reasonable prices on his site... they are still a bit pricey but the information and work the man has done deserves it imo... i can vouch for the quality of the print. and pretty sure he provides a pdf of "excellence" if you buy the physical copy , and also a study guide...

his "common lawyers bible" is his lifes work and magnum opus though... took him decades and the learning of several languages to translate the bible through a lens that is always looking to Law.

incredible stiff really...

and yeah the dude looks the part as well - like he is straight outta the 18th century.

sorry the magnum opus is "good book uncooked"