[Voluntary]

Quote by: Sonart I'm not among the folks on this board who believed our founders walked on water.

I don't either.

I'm simply pointing out -- as per the topic of this thread -- that tax resisters are nothing new, have been around since almost day one of our country's libertarian founding, and that the federal government was as tough on them then as you think they are today.

I don't believe this that the government is as tough on them as they were during Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions. Those Rebellions were provoked by the government. I was trying to point out the difference.

LOL!! I was simply pointing out a fact, dude. The Constitution of 1789 provided for a much stronger central government than did the Articles of Confederation that preceded it. Are you denying it?

No, I am not.

But yes... I'm a Democrat, which I suppose makes me a "Federalist". I believe the Federal government has a valuable role in protecting working Americans from the excesses of the free market.

Believe it or not, we could probably find some common ground here. I believe that some regulation is useful and needed.

Jefferson still would not allow a rebellion against his government to succeed, and would have used every power at his disposal to put it down. He just would have been merciful in dishing out punishment once it was put down.

Unlike Hamilton, Jefferson did not provoke a rebellion. Port or wine could have been taxed. Instead Hamilton choice to grind an economy to a halt based on his values.

Well then, by all means, Voluntary... correct me. When has our government ever allowed an armed insurrection to succeed?

The American Revolution was a succession. The DoI is the documentation of succession. You are correct, the US government has never allowed a armed insurrection to succeed, even though it may have caused them in the first palce with unjust taxes.

Unlike the folks of western Massachusetts in 1794, very, very few Americans find paying income tax so unjust that they willing to pay the price of civil disobedience.

That is why I do not agree with the Browns a 100%. think the government could be reduced along with taxes. A minimal government is needed at least to protect individual rights, property rights, and contracts along with providing some basic services.

At the same time, the Browns are making a political statement that it is unconstitutional to pay taxes on your labor. They also had the right to show up to a court house and defend themselves. They are also a little loony. The recognize the State of NH, but refuse to pay them property taxes. I think they are a lttle extreme.Check out some of the quotes on the wikipedia page. Edward and Elaine Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be great if we were the sole owners of the fruits of our labor. Currently, this is more of a ideal than a reality.

My, aren't you choosy on which specific ideals our country was founded upon.

How many do you want me to list? Locke and Paine were influential. It could be argued that without them, the American Revolution may not have happened. Their were many ideologies among the FF, but Locke influenced a bunch of radical and Paine lit the spark.

and that even many of those Americans who were strongly opposed to slavery were still racially bigoted... not the least example being Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator himself.

I know Lincoln expressed bigotry towards blacks, and I know that the primary cause of the Civil War was not to free the southern slaves.

And if YOU are not an idiot, you also should know that statism is a direct result of the Enlightenment turned indifferent by the industrial revolution.

You can expand on this idea if you'd like before you call me an idiot. I would like to hear what you have to say.

{{Pfffft!!}} Tell that to the Libertarians around here.

I will. Where did anyone get the idea that Washington was not a Federalist?

This board used to be a coven of Libertarians.

What happened to them all?

What?? That even a government that prides itself on being founded by rebellion, who's founders romanticized the concept with the 2nd Amendment,

I am not sure what you mean by romanticized the with the 2nd amendment.

"founded upon ideas espoused by Locke and Paine" would never themselves allow an armed rebellion to succeed against their own regimes?

Are you sure about that? Why did Locke write John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19 and Paine write Common Sense (pamphlet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That no government, not matter how benign, can allow its citizens to defy its laws with impunity?

That depends on the law. There are plenty of absurd ones that are not re-enforced.