Instead of employing the tactics of theatrics and diatribe why not engage in meaningful public debate regarding First Principles in order to achieve clarity?
"Hijacking" used to mean commandeering something by force. Nowadays, many would have us believe that a particular group of people who either successfully achieve ascendancy within a heirarchy or even act on its behalf without the group's endorsement have somehow "hijacked" it. The result is that the word is rendered meaningless other than to be included among the buzzwords of a discontented faction. Why continue to bastardize the English language, and why should it continue to be necessary to submit to the precepts of ANY faction or party, particularly one funded by base interests?
I am not a FairTax expert, but after having reviewed its features, I do have some serious misgivings. Specifically, it shifts the burden for tax collection from employer to merchant so that is essentially still an "automatic" type of tax only moreso, since the only chance one would have of refusing to pay such a tax would be to refuse to purchase or to purchase on the "black market." Moreover, it still requires an obtrusive government to not only enforce compliance, but to issue universal U.S. Treasury "prebate" checks to everyone who "voluntarily" registers to receive them via verification of Social Security numbers (under the same type of signed disavowal and potentially self-incriminating threat of perjury as the present 1040, by the way). Since presumably no-one would want to refuse the monthly payment, it would effectively put everyone on the government payroll. I know cynics might answer that is already the case, but that should not be a cogent argument favoring even more government control, which, I had thought was one of the objections of most people posting on this site.
Somehow, setting up "appointments" to hold regularly scheduled public demonstrations intended to call attention to what many are seeing as a "critical mass" juncture in the country's history seems out of place, particularly if the participants do not have a list of specific demands calling for specific actions on the part of those to whom the message is being delivered. I should think that the mechanism for arriving at a clear consensus as to what those demands should be followed by a clearly stated message containing those demands is the first order of business THEN organize demonstrations. Moreover, "regualrly scheduled" demonstrations tend to be gradually ignored.
Agreed on the term limits. But the FairTax has its problems. It would impose a system that is yet even more involuntary than the existing income tax by requiring the automatic payment of tax at the time of purchase. With the existing system one can, if one so desires, refuse to either file or pay. In addition, one can claim exemption from whithholdiing. There would eventually be consequences, of course, but the choice is still there. Under FairTax, as far as I can tell, the only way to defy payment, if one deems it unjust, is to avoid purchasing or to purchase outside of the legally established system, i.e., the black market. The existing system places employers in the role of tax collectors; the FairTax would simply turn that responsbility over to merchants.
The FairTax is an interesting alternative to the income tax, but it's still too burdensome and will impose a totally involuntary system of taxation. Right now, one can, if one so desires, refuse to file an income tax report. Right now, one can, if one so desires, claim no withholding of income tax dollars from one's wages. There would be consequences, of course, but the freedom to exercise a certain amount of choice still exists. A tax automatically paid at the time of purchase is a tax which one can only refuse to pay by not purchasing or by purchasing outside of the legally established system. It is therefore even yet more involuntary than the existing income tax which it is intended to replace.
Hear, hear! But consider that organizations can also be willingly disbanded according to provisions incorporated into their charters when they are formally established.
Exactly the sort of action I'm talking about. Don't forget that existing amendments can also be repealed.
Weren't Republicans a third party at one time that eventually (in fact, rather quickly) gained ascendancy due to their public opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories? There is always the risk of failure in striking out, and yes, recent efforts to launch and sustain successful third parties have been short-lived and in some cases, perhaps, acted as "spoilers" in general elections, but accepting the status quo is a bit like serving a two-headed dog. I would much rather see the extinction of parties altogether and thereby the elimination of the bribery that accompanies their existence, but that may be totally unrealistic.
It hasn't been tried, so I honestly don't know if it would work. But does the system we have now work, i.e., does it abide by the Constitution and does it fulfill its intent? If not, something else should be tried.
As far as "secret pacts" are concerned, I don't know how those could be prempted without transgressing the law, so the option there would be to maintain vigilance (requires real investigative journalists) and expel (vote out) those who are discovered to have engaged in surreptitiously conspiring to the country's detriment.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig