The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.
Printable View
The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.
The court opines, they do not rule.
A major reason the constitution replaced the Articles is federal taxation on the states. Your title is worded poorly since the constitution specifically itemizes taxation as a fabric of the constitution. May I ask......what are you trying to ask or say?
Honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here...
1. Did you click the link? If so...
2. Do you try and read the post? If so....
3. Was there something you didn't understand? If so...
4. What, exactly, did you not understand?
I'm not trying to be rude. The post that I linked you to is the story of modern economics. If there's a part of it that you don't understand, then you're not going to appreciate the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling. If you don't understand any of the story of modern economics... then let me know. Let us know.
"Taxes" is pretty broad beyond saying that they must be uniform for all states (though actually it says the Congress can lay Taxes AND Duties And Imposts AND Excise taxes (note the coma between each) and that only "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" should be uniform from state to state.
Quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Well, actually Jesus..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhhXCuUG2pw
The Supreme Court decided that compulsory union dues are unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment. What's the economic difference between compulsory union dues and compulsory taxes? There is absolutely no economic difference. The point of compulsory payments is to solve the free-rider problem but the Supreme Court decided that free-riding is a smaller problem than forced-riding. This can't only be true for some compulsory payments... it must be true for them all... because that's how economics works.
Personally I don't know if forced-riding is truly a bigger problem than free-riding. I do know that both are big problems. From my perspective, the best solution is for payments to remain compulsory, but for people to have the freedom to "earmark" them. For unions this means that, rather than conservatives funding liberal causes, they could simply earmark their dues to a new microwave for the employee breakroom. For the government it means that, rather than pacifists funding war, they could earmark their taxes to public education or healthcare. Earmarking would essentially transform the government and unions into markets.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is only slightly more knowledgeable about economics than you are. Maybe they might know that, in this context, if I refer to James Buchanan I'm not referring to the president, I'm referring to the Nobel pragmatarian economist. But it's seriously doubtful that they read his paper about the economics of earmarking.
It shouldn't be a surprise that governments aren't lining up to test the idea of giving taxpayers the freedom to earmark their taxes. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Last year the libertarian party (LP) gave donors the freedom to use their donations to help rank potential convention themes...
$6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
$395.00 — The Power of Principle
$150.00 — Future of Freedom
$135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 — Free Lives Matter
$42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 — Taxation is Theft
$15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 — Liberty Here and Now
Helping to rank the themes was essentially a perk of donating to the LP. The more money that somebody donated, the more influence that they had on the rankings. The market was essentially used to prioritize the themes.
I've been experimenting with this same system over at NationStates...
Books ranked by donation voting (DV)
Political ideologies ranked by DV
The liberals have been DV'ing for stupid things to try and make it appear that democracy is better than the market.
The supreme court’s opinion is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. 5 people in black robes do not have the authority to change the constitution. The constitution specifically includes taxes in their opening article .... which is the reason your title is so confusing. It’s not up for debate, the constitution specifically site’s taxation and 5 citizens in robes cannot change that.
you hand no idea about the economic knowledge of any of us.....you should consider posting your question in the economic forum if you wanted to debate the economics of taxation. But this is the constitution forum and you haven’t offered any evidence to prove the constitution magically omits the taxation language which is specifically included in black and white.
i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t suggesting the United States government is a democracy.....but if that is what you’re saying here, it’s not correct.
The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...
1. Spending is a form of speech
2. Speech cannot be compelled
Therefore, the first amendment logically overrides what the constitution says about taxation.
Voting is used to rank politicians. My hypothesis is that voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure. I think this hypothesis is well-supported by the top-ranked politicians and the top-ranked videos on Youtube.
What do you mean that spending is only sometimes speech? The issue here is communication (the transmission of information). Spending is always communication, but not all communication is spending.
The 16 amendment overrides the 1st? So the constitution says...
What happens if it's decided that taxation isn't an exception to the rule?Quote:
Taxes are cool.
Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.
Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.
The Supreme Court decided that forced-riding is a bigger problem than free-riding. Do you think that this is true for union dues but not taxes?Quote:
Taxes are cool.
Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.
Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.
Nope, there aren't any exceptions to the rule.
Free-riding either is, or isn't, a problem that justifies compulsory communication. Which is it?
If the government doesn't issue any propaganda then 0% of its spending is speech and 0% of my taxes are for speech.
That isn't what it says since not all taxes and spending are speech.
The court can't overrule the constitution so even if all taxes and spending were speech the court can't say there are no exceptions.
Taxes to support the legitimate functions of government are different than a private group's dues, in addition the government is not supposed to engage in speech while unions are allowed to engage in it.
Please clarify what you wrote:
The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...
Also, the first amendment is a reminder to the federal government about people’s natural rights. Spoiler alert, all 10 parts of the bill of rights are reminders to the federal government.
Are you aware that article 1 of the constitution meantions taxation multiple times? You haven’t made any acknowledgement to this simple fact.
So you're equating "propaganda" and "speech"? Free speech is the same thing as free propaganda?
Consider this...
Was it "speech" when Reagan went around saying "Restore our defense"?Quote:
The Soviet Union outspends us on defense by 50 percent, an amount equal to 15 percent of their gross national product. During the campaign I was asked any number of times: If I were faced with a choice of balancing the budget or restoring our national defenses, what would I do? Every time I said, "Restore our defenses." And every time I was applauded. - Ronald Reagan
If it helps...
Quote:
When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence.
Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.” - Supreme Court, Janus v. AFSCME
When you talk about "natural rights" it seems like we're from completely different planets. On my planet, there aren't any natural rights. Nature does not confer or grant any rights. Neither does any god. What is, and is not, allowed is largely determined by the government, which is significantly influenced by voters.
For the longest time people were allowed to drink alcohol. Then the majority of voters decided that alcohol should be prohibited, and the government gave them what they wanted. Even if a taxpayer thought that prohibition was the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes helped to pay for it.
Just like, way back in the day, even if an Egyptian taxpayer thought that the pyramids were the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes helped to pay for it.
Just like now, even if an American taxpayer thinks that war is the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes help to pay for it.
The Supreme Court decided that people should not be forced to help pay for anything that they consider to be seriously stupid.
Now, everything aside, do you truly think it's beneficial to force people to pay for things that they consider to be seriously stupid? Do you believe it's a good idea to take away people's freedom to boycott seriously stupid things?
On the planet that I want to live on, everybody has the freedom to boycott seriously stupid things.
Unfortunately, the inhabitants of the planet, you are currently living on, have no problems with preference falsification. All of it is done in the name of getting ahead. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...th-Public-Lies