On the subject of taxation, didn’t the founding fathers say, “No taxation without representation!”? They thought it perfectly proper for the British Parliament to tax His Majesty’s subjects in Britain, because those subjects had consented to the tax through their representatives in the Parliament. Similarly, Americans could tax themselves through their legislatures. They only objected to being taxed without their indirect consent. I see no reason why they would object in principle to income tax.
And, yet, it never seems to be a sufficiently effective weapon, does it?
It does not seem quite that straightforward. “No taxation without representation” was mainly a rallying cry for the revolution, I think.
In the early US, there was a sort of alt-peerage of well-off land-owners, but the country probably required more revenue even then than the truly represented could provide, so they spread taxation by apportionment (census), which is what Article I allowed for “direct” taxes. The injunction against a “capitation” tax appears to be directed toward preventing a feudal state where the monarch or whatever can say “Pay me or I take everything you have”. Some will sat that that is what the sixteenth amendment has unleashed, and they may be right, but our current socio-economic structure is somewhat different from the context of the original final draft of the constitution. Like in any system, there is both good and bad in the way it works, it is just much easier to shout about how unjust the bad parts are – because, you know, excision is the only way to fix them.
Interesting, although I would say that an income tax is different from a capitation (head) tax because it isn’t saying “you owe the government X dollars just for breathing”.
Not by that time, there wasn’t. They’d already tried that approach with the Articles of Confederation. They had found it didn’t work and couldn’t be made to work. That’s why they tossed it entirely and wrote a Constitution instead.
But yes, libertopia would have been even more unworkable, and even federalism itself is an anachronistic antebellum concept with no place in the modern world.
<nm>.
As my ninth cousin thrice removed by marriage Emperor Frederick the III once said: fuck that shit.
Was there any one at the time who said, “To Hell with the Articles, just let the states be completely independent republics”?
I agree. The majority wanted the United States to become a single country and not a collection of thirteen allied countries. But there was an anti-federalist minority that preferred a state alliance.
However, my main point was that neither side was arguing for a libertarian system. They both wanted a regular government and were just debating on where it would be located.
There probably were, but they did not seem to be represented at the Philadelphia Convention, as might be expected. The Articles were already loose enough, the delegates to the convention felt that there needed to be some kind of change to tighten things up. Madison’s notes from the second day indicate that there was fairly broad support for a stronger national government.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it:
Fine. So amend the friggin’ Constitution already! Not have a slippery slope of unspoken agreement to ignore both the spirit and the letter of the document.
The evidence is far from conclusive but it looks as if the proponents and opponents of the Constitution were about equal during the ratification debate. Jackson Turner Main gives as his best guess that around 52% of the white population was antifederal (The Antifederalists, Chapter 11, note 1.) And that only counts those who opposed a stronger federal government. Nationalists were so few on the ground that they were happy to use the designation of “Federalist”. In the localist political climate of the day the national features of the proposal were downplayed.
None that I’m aware of. Keep in mind that the “crisis” of the “Critical Period” is something that we perceive from our view of the US as a single nation. If instead you look at the states as sovereign units then they worked just fine. (Assuming you didn’t, as the elite Federalists did, believe that democracy and/or attempts to alleviate household debt problems were illegitimate.) There was no benefit from leaving the Confederation. If a state wanted to ignore Congress they easily could and did.