The Fugitive Slave Act was passed in
1850 to deal with the problem of runaway slaves and the weakening of
a 1793 law with the same objective. All people want to keep the fruits
of their labor and when this desire is violated they seek some
remedy, whether it be a change in the law or a change in location. If
a slave could make it to Canada he was probably safe from the slave
catchers. Some northern states had laws against black people –
slave or free – moving into the state, so Canada was probably the
best option. If a slave could escape to a free area he could keep all
his earnings since there was no income tax at the time.
Today the state of affairs is a little
different. If an American citizen wants to keep all his income there
is no place to escape to. If such a person moves to Switzerland,
Uganda, Haiti or Antarctica the IRS wants its “share” of his
income. It doesn't matter that the person no longer lives in the US
or makes any money in the US, just by virtue of citizenship, Uncle Sam wants
his share.
If the plantation owner of yesteryear
could somehow reap the benefits of the runaway slave's labor no
matter where he was, he would have had no incentive to capture him
and bring him back. What difference would it make where he was if the
“owner” still had an irrevocable claim against his productivity?
The slave had an advantage over the modern counterpart if he could
escape the country.
In feudal times there were serfs known
as serfs “regardant” and serfs “in gross.” A serf regardant
was only a serf in regards to one Lord, otherwise he was free. A serf
in gross was a serf always and everywhere no matter who he worked
for. Americans are now what could be described as serfs in gross. No
matter where they live or work, the federal vampire demands its
gallon of blood even though the victim is using none of its
“services.”
Every time a national holiday of some
sort comes around, be it Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day or
some other, we hear the usual script about how Americans are free and
that we owe a huge debt to founders, veterans or somebody for all the
freedom we enjoy. This presents an odd definition of freedom. What
exactly does it mean to be free? Is it possible to be free when
someone has an irrevocable, unlimited claim on everything you earn?
Some will object that the income tax is not unlimited, it's “only”
thirty-nine percent or whatever it happens to be, but this can be
changed at any time for any reason. Serfs generally owed about twenty
percent to the Lord - were they free?
Americans are so indoctrinated in the
slave mentality that they will refer to someone who wants to keep the
fruits of his labor as a “tax cheat.” Our Founding Fathers
probably would not even have understood such a term. Weren't all of
them aspiring tax cheats?
During every election politicians prattle on
about reducing taxes, closing loopholes, tax reform or some other
bromide to hoodwink the greatest number of voters. Almost none ever
talk about abolishing the income tax and abolishing the IRS. The
government loves an income tax because it allows it to pry into the
financial affairs of all its citizens and it gives it a sword of
Damocles to hold over any person or group that might have the wrong
opinions. Many people like the income tax because they envy those
more successful than themselves and like to see them punished. Marx
and Engels undoubtedly realized this when they made “A heavy
progressive or graduated income tax” the second plank of the
Communist Manifesto. Anything short of abolition is adjusting
the fit of the chains on the slaves.
Not only does the government tax income
of those living outside the country, it prohibits those who “owe”
back taxes from leaving the plantation
country. Nobody is free who has a master that has first claim against
all his earnings. Proverbs XXII:7 says that the borrower is slave to
the lender, but in the land of the free, even those who haven't
borrowed are slaves by virtue of citizenship, and there's nowhere to
run.
No comments:
Post a Comment