Frontiersman, July 1996

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, July 1996

Taxation Without Representation
by Sir James the Bold
With all the tax plans being suggested today, what system would be best for you? How about having a system where a level of government can tax only within its own jurisdiction? Any level of government would then support the next higher level of government in the hierarchy of government. Currently, the hierarchy is the federal government, the state governments, and the county and local governments. County and local governments have an equivalent level of jurisdiction, both being chartered by the state. Every level taxes individual people. A better hierarchy would be the federal government, the state governments, the county governments, and then the local governments, with local governments being chartered by the county governments. For the purposes of taxation, the federal government would have the power to tax anything within its jurisdiction that is not within the jurisdiction of a more local level of government. The state government would have the power to tax anything within its jurisdiction that is not within the jurisdiction of a more local level of government. The county government would have the power to tax anything within its jurisdiction that is not within the jurisdiction of a more local level of government. The local government would have the power to tax anything within its jurisdiction. People would be within the jurisdiction of local government, and pay taxes only to local government.
Large and ponderous bureaucracies are not responsive to the changing needs they were put into place to serve. Everyone sees, but feels powerless to prevent, the excesses of these bureaucracies within the governmental system. With a fundamental shift towards decentralizing government funding, the people would be better able to monitor and control how their tax money is spent.

Not a Sufficient Guard
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

As with most so-called protections provided by the so-called Bill of Rights, the provision that deals with self-incrimination is tainted. Protection against self-incrimination is acknowledged only for criminal cases. Page 1 Box

The Fifth Amendment doesn't acknowledge any right to be free of self-incrimination in civil cases. Not all courts are criminal courts. Traffic courts are an example at the local level. There are also federal courts which are not considered to be criminal courts. Prominent among them is the U.S. Tax Court, in which there isn't any protection against self-incrimination.¹

The so-called protection against self-incrimination isn't secure, even in criminal cases. If a court grants immunity, then refusal of an accused individual to answer questions constitutes the additional and separate crime of criminal contempt.

The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is mostly a plaything for lawyers. It serves little other purpose. This is partly due to the limited scope of the provision, which has provided the temptation to create "crimes" and jurisdictions that are not "criminal". However, it's mostly due to the ignorance of the people. That is, the failure of the Bill of Rights to acknowledge certain rights doesn't operate to destroy those rights. Such failure has no effect upon those rights at all. If U.S. citizens want (for example) the right to remain silent in a civil case, they can have the right by insisting upon it. The lack or existence of a provision in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant.

"The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands."

— James Madison in The Federalist Papers, No.48

The articles Courts of the United States and Tax Court, from Black's Law Dictionary, are available upon request.

Needed Changes to the Income Tax Laws
by John H. Webster; http://www.vikora.com/CWS/jwebster/

There has been a lot of talk lately about how to adjust the income tax laws to make the system "fairer" (what ever that is). Some people want a "flat" tax (fine tuned for their benefit), while others want to switch to a national sales tax. None of these desired changes address the real problem: that the Income Tax is really an extortion. If you don't pay you go to jail. What we desperately need is a change that addresses this fundamental issue.

There is just such a change that could and should be made to the Income Tax laws. It is to simply have the Income Tax apply only to citizens of the United States and that the maximum punishment for non-payment of that tax would be the forfeiture of that citizenship and the loss of all the benefits that go with it (note: a persons natural rights of life liberty and property are not benefits of being a citizen and those rights would not be lost. The protection of those rights by the US Government is a benefit of citizenship, and that protection would be lost.)

If enacted, this change would profoundly effect the relationship between the US Government and the people of these United States. Currently that relationship is similar to that between a feudal lord and his serfs. With that change it would be more like that between a service provider and its customers.

For comparison, look at a large corporation like General Motors. You might have two controlling relationships with such a corporation. The first is as a stock holder, where you would have a small vote (one in several hundred thousand) to elect who gets on the board of directors, who in turn decides how General Motors runs their business and what kind of cars they will make and sell. This is similar to the vote we have to control our government

The second and most important controlling relationship is that of a customer where you have a one to one vote. If General Motors doesn't have a car that you like at a price you are willing to pay, you don't buy. It is this right of the customer not to buy that makes General Motors do the research to discover what customers want and then to figure how to supply it as inexpensively as possible. In reality the only really important vote that the stockholders and board of directors need to make is the unanimous vote that they want the customer's money and that they will use whatever honest means they can to get it.

This simple change would result in the US Congress (ie. the US Government's board of directors) being more interested in how to improve the quality of their product — the benefits of being a citizen — while reducing the cost, and less interested in keeping track of every penny a person earns to ensure that the government gets its share. No doubt, the yearly tax form would start including a questionnaire asking the tax payer how well the government was doing.

The US Congress would quickly discover that they could only tax people up to that value that those people thought their citizenship was worth. So while the "rich" might be willing to pay more to ensure the protection of their businesses and their expensive properties, they would not put up with exorbitant costs in taxes for services that they don't need or that they could buy on their own at competitive free market prices. As a result the government would no longer be able to soak the rich and productive to pay for the "free" benefits that it sprinkles on the poor and middle class masses in an effort to buy their votes.

In conclusion, by making the Income Tax a payment for continued citizenship, our government would then be more like a public services corporation providing services and charging for those services. It would be looking for new and cheaper ways to serve the public, instead of being the Power Broker selling our rights and our property to the highest bidder in exchange for more power.

More About Censorship
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

While pondering recently, I recalled a response that somebody suggested about 30 years ago to a barrage of censorship tihsllub that was in progress at that time. That's one advantage of getting older. Censorship tihsllub tends to occur in cycles, and I'm old enough now to remember some of the previous responses to it. I don't remember for sure where I read this particular suggestion, but I think it was in Playboy Magazine, while I was in college. The suggestion was that, when faced with censorship, just spell all of the "bad" words backwards. One thing is sure — such a tactic will defeat the current internet pornography filters, at least until the stinking puritans realize that they need to add a spelling checker to their software. Even that isn't all bad, because then the pornography filters will eliminate anything with a misspelled word in it, thereby annoying more people. When the puritans do reprogram the pornography filters, then we'll just have to think of some other way to defeat their censorship tihsllub.

The Outlaw Adventure
By Don Cormier

Let me start by saying what I mean by the terms "laws" and "outlaw": By "laws" I mean statutes, legislation, regulations, etc. These are enacted laws, that is, laws created by men as opposed to LAWS discovered by men. They are not LAW in the largest sense, that is, the "necessary relations which arise from the nature of things". (Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, b. 1, ch. 1). These enacted laws may not be LAWS, but may be an attempt by one group of people to impose a set of standards upon another group of people. They rely for their enforcement upon the arbitrary imposition of a penalty rather than upon the natural consequences of an act. By "outlaw", I mean a person who lives without depending on the protection of the laws, and who lives without moral regard for the laws. The fact that some claim that it would be "moral" for such a person to conform his behavior to the dictates of the law will not cause him to do so, because the outlaw's will or whim is as valid, moral, and sacred as the will or whim of any other human being.

The outlaw's adventure begins when he decides on what to be, do, or have. It continues as he compares his goals with the obstacles present in the environment. This assessment includes, of course, an assessment of the obstacles presented by governments.

Once the obstacles are identified, the outlaw seeks ways to destroy or evade them. He asks how can his goals be most efficiently attained.

The experience of outlaws over the centuries has generated some tips. A study of their lives can be useful for would-be outlaws. Some outlaws have perceived that it's helpful to realize that life is like a game, and that happiness is the scoring system. The bumper sticker puts it crudely but aptly: "The one who dies with the most toys wins." This is true, and consistent with the outlaw game, if the word "toys" is construed to mean anything considered a positive value or experience by the individual, and if the outlaw carefully retains his responsible awareness of the effect of his actions. He can reject laws, but he cannot reject LAW.

To enhance scoring of the "game", some operating procedures have proven useful or at least satisfying. For example, an outlaw who receives violence may give back violence. An outlaw who receives fraud may give back fraud. An outlaw met with peace ought to give back peace. An outlaw finds that it is best to meet honesty with honesty.

As the century draws to a close, all outlaws and would-be outlaws who operate within the territory known as the "United States of America" are being forced to consider the desirability and the possibility of terminating the government of the United States of America. This is because the gross restrictions, intrusions, obstructions, obligations, and impositions placed on everyone living within the territory claimed by the U.S. government are gravely endangering the ability of outlaws to live as outlaws. There is no endangered species act for outlaws.

Libertoons
by Dante DeAmicis

I wish the so called "Libertarian Party" would change its name so the true libertarians could reclaim the term without causing confusion. I might suggest "Propertarian Party" from Neil Smith's Probability Broach, since Libertarians define everything in terms of property. Another idea is "Individualist Party", since Libertarians prefer the current level of statism to any legal libertarian options that require the smallest level of cooperation. The "Do Nothing Party" comes to mind, as well as the "Libertoon Party".

Because it is obvious that the Libertarians' pipe dream of subsidized myopia is not going to happen, I have returned to my roots and am involved with the Fellowship for Intentional Community. This group is involved in helping people develop the skills necessary to apply their own resources with fellow travellers for the here and now. They are not armchair theoreticians with Republican lifestyles. They publish Communities Magazine and the Communities Directory. They host useful conventions dealing with others' experiences and practical information in community building. Improving social skills and consensus building are also on their agenda.

I also co-host a public affairs radio program¹ which frequently includes interviews. We are doing more outreach to communitarian type libertarians since whenever we get the pseudo variety on the show we are treated to boring abstractions and the one clear vision that if only we could get rid of government we would have all that money to spend. It makes me want to throw up after awhile.

Free and Clear, alternate Wednesdays, 6 - 8 AM
KKUP 91.5 FM, P.O. Box 820, Cupertino, California 95015

There's nothing wrong with the idea of getting rid of government. Indeed, intentional communities are no panacea. They've been tried before in countless variations — Branch Davidians, Freemen, MOVE, etc. ad infinitum. Any effective intentional community will become a target of government intervention. Therefore, the success of your intentional communities depends upon first solving the problem of intrusive government.

— editor

•     My thanks to Princess Catherine of Mere Keep for assistance in repairing the Mere Keep computer system.
•     My thanks to Mars, of Silicon Valley, for procuring, repairing, and maintaining the Mere Keep copier.
•     My thanks to Sir James the Bold, of Mere Keep, for time and expertise contributed to the repair and maintenance of the Mere Keep computer system.
•     My thanks to Shirley, of Urbana, Illinois, for her donation.

— editor

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
No matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to make both ends meet. Can you suggest something that might help?

— Frustrated

Dear Frustrated
Try to make one end fish.

Frontiersman
435 South White Road
San Jose, California 95127

Produced at Mere Keep

Notice to the Readers A warrant has been issued for my arrest. If an arrest is attempted, then publication of the Frontiersman might be suspended indefinitely or permanently, without further notice.

— editor

Darkness Upon the Face of the Deep:
A New Theory of Illumination
Reported by Sam Aurelius Milam III

I recently heard a new theory of illumination. The theory was explained to me over amateur radio by Kim Genrich, WA3WEJ, who claims that she and some friends developed it one evening at a party.

Illumination, Kim explained, works not due to the emission of light, but due to the absorption of dark. Flashlights provide evidence for this theory. The batteries of a flashlight that has stopped working contain lots of black stuff. The flashlight stopped working because the batteries absorbed all of the dark that they could absorb. They were full. Additional evidence, Kim pointed out, can be obtained by burning a match. The flame will burn until the match has absorbed all the dark that it can absorb. When the match can't suck any more dark, the flame goes out. Predictably, the "burned" end of the match is black. Kim also cited astronomical black holes. They've obviously absorbed huge amounts of dark. Very interesting. I'll have to watch for other evidence of this theory.

Letter to the Editor (an excerpt)
Dear Sam
... I truly think our constitution is a thing of the past. Kids don't learn about our history any more, and the "powers that be" interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want it to say. I'm glad I'm an old woman that won't last much longer. I believe Dante was right — there have to be levels in Hell. Dante's trouble was he assigned the government officials of his day to the level he thought appropriate. After that, he had to "leave town" ....

— Shirley; Urbana, Illinois

Sesame Suite

Bernie: Hey Burt!

Burt: I'm busy! Go away!

Bernie: What do you call a paralyzed man balanced on a pedestal in a museum?

Burt: Nothing! You just help him to get off of the pedestal!

Bernie: You call him Art!

Burt: You're sick, Bernie, sick!!

If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.

Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue