-------------
Jack Levitt: Freedom of action, freedom of thought, and freedom to own private property are concepts fundamental to the very heart of our way of life.
Since the start of the 20th century, these freedoms have been slowly compromised. The most drastic loss is the erosion of the right of absolute ownership of property. John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, said, "Property has divine rights, and the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, anarchy and tyranny begin."
Our forefathers held no doubt as to the supreme importance of a person's private property rights.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution expresses that right simply and directly; "...nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without just compensation." The word "property" was purposely used with those of "life" and "liberty."
The framers of the Constitution understood that a person had inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and that to take one's property was tantamount to taking one's life or liberty. Private property, like life and liberty, was not to be subject to the whims and caprices of the majority or of the government. Yet, leaders speak in favor of human rights over property rights, as if the two were inconsistent or mutually exclusive.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create," wrote Chief Justice John Marshall. Today's corollary is that the power to regulate involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the right to own property.
Confiscatory taxes and overburdening regulations improperly take our private property and gravely threaten the fabric of our capitalistic society. They are the tyranny of which Adams spoke.
----------------------
Vern Smalley: A recent letter complained about “confiscatory taxes,” that is, taxes which are not designed to increase revenue, but target the wealthy to take away their money (Mr. Smalley offers this definition, but it is not how Mr. Levitt characterized the issue. Mr. Levitt repeatedly made the point that property rights are being infringed upon by government. He then goes on to state that "confiscatory taxes and overburdening regulations improperly take our private property..." As one reads Mr. Levitt's letter, there is no mention at all of the wealthy. So the question is, why did Mr. Smalley mischaraterize Mr. Levitt's point?) . I suppose this means extra taxes on vacation homes, luxury boats, private airplanes and the like. According to this definition, confiscatory taxes are used as penalties for being rich (He "supposes." In other words, he imposes concepts that were never offered by his interlocutor. Mr. Smalley is now extending his false definition by making inferences).
If one has accumulated significant property, including money, I can see how the owners might view any tax as being confiscatory (Mr. Smalley now compartmentalizes Mr. Levitt's position, twisting it into him defending the rich.).
However, taxes are something that most of us pay (Now Mr. Smalley circles back around and chides Mr. Levitt for leaving out the regular guy. Of course, Mr. Levitt made no point about "most of us," either.). The more money you make, the more taxes you should pay, and at a higher rate (A point that was never discussed by Mr. Levitt.). People who don’t make much shouldn’t have to pay much, if any at all. Those who make the most money should be willing to contribute more to our country as a payback for being able to reap the greatest bounty (So Mr. Smalley has taken Mr. Levitt's property rights argument and transformed it into his own issue, that being, who should pay taxes and how much. Mr. Smalley creates a strawman and then attempts to tear down. But he isn't really that successful at that even. He simply makes 2 or 3 bare assertions as if they were gospel truth.
Mr. Smalley mischaracterized Mr. Levitt's point in order to morph the issue into "the rich vs the little guy." Mr. Smalley had no intention of addressing Mr. Levitt's actual point.).
But then the letter writer claims that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “...nor shall any person ... be deprived of his life, liberty or property without just compensation.” The ratified Fifth Amendment is different. It reads, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Twisting what the Constitution’s amendments say to strengthen your argument is not polite (I wonder if Mr. Smalley has similar reservations about twisting Mr. Levitt's letter? But as we compare the language of the 5th amendment to Mr. Levitt's somewhat awkward paraphrase, we see that the meaning of the quote has not been particularly twisted. Mr. Levitt conglomerates "due process of law" and "just compensation," which are separate but related concepts. The entire amendment is restricting the government from doing a number of things, including the taking of property.
Mr. Levitt is drawing a conclusion that taxes take property just like regulation does. We can debate the merit of that conclusion, but he has done no violence to the Constitution. But really, since when is literal reading of the Constitution been a high priority for the Left anyway? I thought it was a living document?).
If one has accumulated significant property, including money, I can see how the owners might view any tax as being confiscatory (Mr. Smalley now compartmentalizes Mr. Levitt's position, twisting it into him defending the rich.).
However, taxes are something that most of us pay (Now Mr. Smalley circles back around and chides Mr. Levitt for leaving out the regular guy. Of course, Mr. Levitt made no point about "most of us," either.). The more money you make, the more taxes you should pay, and at a higher rate (A point that was never discussed by Mr. Levitt.). People who don’t make much shouldn’t have to pay much, if any at all. Those who make the most money should be willing to contribute more to our country as a payback for being able to reap the greatest bounty (So Mr. Smalley has taken Mr. Levitt's property rights argument and transformed it into his own issue, that being, who should pay taxes and how much. Mr. Smalley creates a strawman and then attempts to tear down. But he isn't really that successful at that even. He simply makes 2 or 3 bare assertions as if they were gospel truth.
Mr. Smalley mischaracterized Mr. Levitt's point in order to morph the issue into "the rich vs the little guy." Mr. Smalley had no intention of addressing Mr. Levitt's actual point.).
But then the letter writer claims that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “...nor shall any person ... be deprived of his life, liberty or property without just compensation.” The ratified Fifth Amendment is different. It reads, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Twisting what the Constitution’s amendments say to strengthen your argument is not polite (I wonder if Mr. Smalley has similar reservations about twisting Mr. Levitt's letter? But as we compare the language of the 5th amendment to Mr. Levitt's somewhat awkward paraphrase, we see that the meaning of the quote has not been particularly twisted. Mr. Levitt conglomerates "due process of law" and "just compensation," which are separate but related concepts. The entire amendment is restricting the government from doing a number of things, including the taking of property.
Mr. Levitt is drawing a conclusion that taxes take property just like regulation does. We can debate the merit of that conclusion, but he has done no violence to the Constitution. But really, since when is literal reading of the Constitution been a high priority for the Left anyway? I thought it was a living document?).
Vern G. Smalley Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment