Fairness, part 3

In my two most recent columns, I addressed the issue of fairness in human relations, specifically with regard to taxation, and asserted that mandatory taxation violates property rights by instituting the confiscation of an individual’s legitimately earned assets.

At the end of the latter column, I noted that the goal of financing government entirely through voluntary payments would nevertheless be impossible given the present size and scope of government in our country and stated that “pushing for government’s return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and pushing for reductions in the unfairness and coerciveness of taxation is a good place to start.”

Today, I’d like to turn to areas that merit further exploration within the context of the federal government’s activities (as contrasted with its enumerated powers).

Next week, I intend to conclude this present discussion – at least for the time being – with a survey of potential avenues for reducing the unfairness and coerciveness of taxation and government financing in general.

First, a word on the gulf between government’s activities and its enumerated powers. As few in Washington seem to recall, our constitution, far from being a blanket authorization for actions by Congress, the president and the courts, was intended to clearly and unambiguously delineate a small number of powers to officers in each branch with the understanding that all other powers were reserved to the states and/or the people.

Despite this, as numerous observers have noted over the years, each branch of our government has overstepped its bounds with astonishing blitheness.

In addition to enacting the coercive and compulsory taxation already addressed at length, Congress has legislated the violation of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with the USA PATRIOT Act and has authorized undeclared wars repeatedly since World War II.

Recent presidents have taken it upon themselves to wage undeclared wars and to appoint officers, commonly known as “czars,” to carry out immensely influential tasks with little congressional oversight.

Finally, many judges on the federal bench have made a habit for decades of making policy instead of simply interpreting the law in the cases before them.
Recent Supreme Court appointee Sonia Sotomayor has even made an admission to this effect.   

The foregoing are, of course, just a sampling of the unconstitutional activities and activities of questionable constitutionality undertaken by our federal government today and in recent years, but they merit serious discussion and, potentially, legal action.
It should be noted also that there are currently numerous petitions, circulating mostly on the Internet, that request the redress of many of these grievances, although some of these petitions are unquestionably more complete than others.

While some of the grievances listed in certain petitions are a bit of a stretch, and while no petition seems to have made all of the points worth making, taken as a group such petitions raise important issues and merit just as serious a discussion as the usurpations they highlight.

I look forward to exploring the federal government’s unconstitutional activities in the future and hope a robust dialogue ensues.