Petition for Opting Out of Social Security

[skiehawk11]

Aitrus, I have always been a fan of a property tax only policy. Georgism advocated such a way to fund the government. With that said, you may not agree with its stance on property rights related to land. However, Georgism defends its premise logically. Take a look into it.

[Aitrus]

Skie,

Ok, lemme see if I can wind through this one without stumbling over something:

1 - 4 - agreed.

5 & 6 - Taxing the value of the property instead of taxing the property itself. Isn't this taxing an abstract idea? Like taxing love or inspirational thinking? Since that's a silly idea and logically impossible, I'd argue that the value of the property is the numerical equivalent / representation of what the property is worth in the medium of exchange that both taxer and taxee are using. The medium of exchange could be sheep, camels, gold, dollars, barrels of monkeys, whatever, so long as both taxer and taxee agree to use that form of currency. Since the tax isn't on the value, the tax would instead be on the property itself, and is calculated using that numerical equivalent / representation. It doen't tax the numerical equivalent / representation itself, that's just an abstract idea.

Ditto taxation of labor - it's the labor that is taxed, not the numerical representation. Labor actually makes my argument better. Taxes on labor could just as easily be paid by the taxee performing labor or effort (as opposed for trading their time, as Arrie correctly says nobody owns - time is simply an expression for how we experience reality as three-dimensional beings - it's what one does within the measurement of time that has value and can be traded, not the time itself) for the taxer instead of handing over camels or barrels of monkeys as long as the taxer accepted the labor as legimate payment. This could also mean that a tax on land could mean that you could load a few rocks or split logs from the pile out back onto the Government's flatbed as payment if they'd accept them in lieu of a check.

7 & 8 - Yes. Limiting the amount of property one has by limiting the value / numerical representation of the items they have is the same as legal plunder. Legal plunder cannot be done to the person who owns nothing. That person must acquire something of value - through recieving a good from somebody else, discovery and claiming of a tangible good, self-creation of a sellable idea / concept, or performance of labor to earn a numerical representation in their employer's balance sheet - before a tax may be applied.

9 - But money is property. If I go to the bank and take out cash, it is property that I hold in my hand, as well as the ability to purchase more property of a different kind should I choose to do so (or service if that is what I desire). True, different pieces hold different values, but that's only because we've agreed that the one with George on it is worth less than the one with Ben. That's like saying we agree that a white sheep will buy a single barrel of monkeys, but a black sheep will buy three barrels of the feces flingers. The sheep themselves are still property. Ditto with money and monkeys too. No matter if I have the money in hand, or money in a ledger at the bank - I still own property of value and it is thus legal plunder to take it.

10 - 11 - Technically, it is. Let's suppose that all my property is tangible - everything I own is real in three dimensions and I have nothing in the bank. Come tax time, I have to sell some of what I have to pay the bill, thus I lose property. If I already have some money in the bank on the ledger, then I have the potential to purchase property; but if I have to pay some of the money in taxes, then I lose some of the potential I once had, and taxation forces the total amount of property I can own downward. Legal plunder.

12 - Markets aren't taxation, it's a representation of the agreed-upon ability we ascribe to white and black sheep to buy barrels of red-butted baboons. If the whole agree that it now takes two black sheep to buy a barrel instead of three, then that's a flucation of the numerical equivalent of either sheep or monkeys or the barrels that hold them.

13 - What if being poor isn't bad? What if it's neutral and instead life is what you make of it instead of what you own? What if FDR simply created SS to get votes and power for his party over the voting populace instead of being a decent human being and letting everybody live their lives in peace?

14 - Darwin had this little idea about how some living creatures thrive and others don't. I also seem to recall that the French Revolution solved the dilemma of when the rich man doesn't take care of those whose shoulders he stands on. You see it in Nature as well - too many wolves end up killing too many rabbits; not enough rabbits so then the wolves starve. There has to be a balance that is naturally struck between the rich and poor, not one that is enforced by a government that has other agendas in mind or that is coerced this way or that by either money or interest groups. Like it or not, death is a part of life, and so is poverty and riches (some wolves are better hunters than others, some rabbits have better camoflauge or better hearing than others).

15 - Legal plunder is greed by proxy; Greed is considered evil from a biblical perspective but also a survival trait by Darwin (until it goes too far, when the greed fosters French Revolutions and, by extension, Communism in the form of collective greed - how dare anybody own more than everybody else?); Death is a part of life, so I don't understand the desire enslave another so as to extend the life of another. Might as well ask "is it better to force one man to be a slave or to let the other die?"

The rich man doesn't have the right to force the poor man to die, neither does the poor man have the right to steal from the rich man, either personally or via governmental action. Both rights, the right to live and the right of property, are equal, with one being the implementation of the other. Basically, if one cannot own one's property without penalty, then one is not free and is thus a slave. Which is worse: enslaving another, or letting another die?

Some exerpts from http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights (includes quotes from Ayn Rand's book "The Virtue of Selfishness")

"The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.""

16 - As I've said before, morality is relative in that it depends on where you stand as to what is moral or not. Something objectively evil in from one stance may be objectively good from another. Altruism, including forced altruism, is incompatible with freedom and individual rights.

[Aitrus]

Aitrus, I have always been a fan of a property tax only policy. Georgism advocated such a way to fund the government. With that said, you may not agree with its stance on property rights related to land. However, Georgism defends its premise logically. Take a look into it.

I'll take a look at it, but it sounds like you might be right, I might not like it.

[Aitrus]

Our founding fathers created exercise taxes at will to pay for whatever the government wanted. This is why we had the Whiskey Rebellion. Your argument seems to be counter to what our funding fathers actually did. Please explain to me how they created a system "where a limited government collects limited taxes in order to function...", when they them selves created taxes on goods and services as they pleased?

You seem to have a romanticized version of the truth.

In truth the first time an Income tax was discussed in American politics was during the War of 1812. Even back then our founding fathers did not outright dismiss this as a possibility.

Which is more romanticized, my view or yours?

My view: The government starts out limited to zero power. It is granted 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution, with any other powers reserved to the States and People via the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Your view (from what I can gather): The government starts out with unlimited power, and rights are granted to The People by the Constitution. These rights are either granted directly (1st, 2nd, etc) or by limiting certain actions of the government (5th). If not specifically identified in the Constitution, then The People have no say in what the government does or how it does it.

The Founders did have taxes, but ones that were specific and limited. I'm not arguing against taxation completely. I'm arguing against unneeded taxation for purposes outside the confines of the Constitution. The government exists to secure our rights and liberties, not trample over them.

[skiehawk11]

Aitrus,

But is legal plunder in the basis of public education, healthcare and social security greed?

If greed is defined as "a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions" then social programs aren't. Sure, there are a few that take advantage of the system, but that in no way means that as a whole social programs are not done out of greed. Sure, it's false philanthropy as it is forcing others with to give to those without. But, if those without are given that which is needed then how is that greed?

[Aitrus]

Yes, it is greed - community greed, rather than individual greed, but still greed. Juat because legislators make it more palatable because it's "for the poor" or "for the kids" or "for the minorities" or whatever the rationalization is, it's still greed. For the government to pull money from thr rich and provide to the poor, regardless of the method or reason, then this is a transfer of wealth, and is immoral. This applies to both the Federal, State and Local levels of government, with each first following the Constitution, then establishing their own laws subsequent to that document.

Schools should be locally funded and controlled without any involvement from the Federal level in any way.

Healthcare is something that is an individual responsibility first, family responsibility second, and voluntary donations afterward. Ditto retirement planning.

Anything that makes people more reliable on government is anathema to what the Founders established. The government wastes the money it is given and cannot spend it frugally due to administration and bureacuracy, for each and every program except for a few which is alone is solely capable of providing (court system, military, etc). Government's purpose under the American model is to protect and secure individual liberties (as opposed to the wellbeing of segments of the population), not violate them, and to provide those things which the layman and communities are incapable of providing (courts, standing military). Other than that, each person is supposed to be responsible for his or her self. Any providing of those things to any person via the government taxation and transfer of wealth is not protecting individual liberties, but rather the opposite.

Separate discussion, but this is why the Civil War was fought. It wasn't over slavery, it was over the right of the States to govern themselves according to their wishes. Lincoln simply used abolishing slavery as a tool to help th North achieve economic superiority in the conflict. I personally think that Lincoln did more to damage the Founder's vision of a nation of free, indepently governed States joined together for certain causes than any other President.

[skiehawk11]

I think you're stretching the definition in order to support the idea of legal plunder. Adding a qualifier to greed doesn't do anything. You now define it as community greed. If the majority of the money is being given to a community of havenots, how does that qualify as greed? Simply adding community to it doesn't automatically make the function of taxes to social programs greed.

And what's the difference between federal, state and local taxes? Bastiat nor any other libertarian makes such a distinction? Locally funded would still fall under legal plunder at the local level. Would you be okay with healthcare funded at the local level? If you're making such a distinction then ultimately you agree of limited legal plunder...just not at the federal level because somehow that's just bad. This is my grievance with Bastiat. He writes this rigid and narrow definition in the law, but in reality he advocated for tariffs and subsidies.

And how is healthcare an individual responsibility fully? On a personal level, I know I need to eat right, brush my teeth, go get check ups, etc, etc. That is personal responsibility and I agree it needs to be done on an individual labor. But I have resources to do so. If a person doesn't have resources how are they to take care of themselves? If havenot's do not have access or money for preventative medicine how far does individual responsibility take a person to a healthy life? Jayne in Firefly has a great quote, "Ten percent of nothing is—let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin'. Carry the nothin'...".

I do agree with you on one aspect though. I don't like the idea of people being dependent on government. Rather, I wish/hope social programs allow those who are poor a chance to move up. To me, social programs done right is a way that a country can invest in its society. If my tax money allows someone or a family to become productive in the future I'll allow it.

[ArrieS]

Separate discussion, but this is why the Civil War was fought. It wasn't over slavery, it was over the right of the States to govern themselves according to their wishes. Lincoln simply used abolishing slavery as a tool to help th North achieve economic superiority in the conflict. I personally think that Lincoln did more to damage the Founder's vision of a nation of free, indepently governed States joined together for certain causes than any other President.

What!?!? Wrong wrong wrong wrong, it was the exact opposite. Show me one declaration made by the southern states as to the reason for leaving the union that doesn't cite slavery.

Slavery was all over every one of their declarations. That is rewriting history.

Your only argument for states rights is states rights to continue and perpetuate slavery.

In fact this is from the "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"

The first state to leave the Union.

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."

See that, in the very first part they distinguish themselves based on slavery as "slaveholding States".

Slaves are mentioned 18 times in their declaration. Claiming slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War is REVISIONIST HISTORY.

[ArrieS]

Which is more romanticized, my view or yours?

My view: The government starts out limited to zero power. It is granted 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution, with any other powers reserved to the States and People via the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Your view (from what I can gather): The government starts out with unlimited power, and rights are granted to The People by the Constitution. These rights are either granted directly (1st, 2nd, etc) or by limiting certain actions of the government (5th). If not specifically identified in the Constitution, then The People have no say in what the government does or how it does it.

The Founders did have taxes, but ones that were specific and limited. I'm not arguing against taxation completely. I'm arguing against unneeded taxation for purposes outside the confines of the Constitution. The government exists to secure our rights and liberties, not trample over them.

Of course in your whole response you failed to address the issue that in 1814 our federal government started drafting a proposal for an income tax. The only thing that stop it was the treaty of Ghent in 1815.

Wouldn't an income tax grant them a carte blanche? Not a tax that would have been limited as you claim was their intent? See, we have an attempt to create a blanket tax that would have been monstrous by your standards in our early government.

But as a side note,

The government starts out limited to zero power. It is granted 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution, with any other powers reserved to the States and People via the 9th and 10th Amendments.

First, how can you say the government started out limited or zero power when our nation was founded it had the power to declare a whole people as not human and property? So a Government that has the power to legally define a person as a non-person is limited in power and not tyrannical by your logic?

[Aitrus]

I think you're stretching the definition in order to support the idea of legal plunder. Adding a qualifier to greed doesn't do anything. You now define it as community greed. If the majority of the money is being given to a community of havenots, how does that qualify as greed? Simply adding community to it doesn't automatically make the function of taxes to social programs greed.

When a group of people petition the government to grant them subsidies, funds or programs to fulfill something which they themselves cannot do and do not truly need in the quantity or quality they ask for, then that is greed. They desire something they cannot have but which somebody else has the means of providing and yet won't, so they steal it by governmental fiat. Theft is theft, regardless of whether it is conducted one individual against another, or as a group against others.

And what's the difference between federal, state and local taxes? Bastiat nor any other libertarian makes such a distinction? Locally funded would still fall under legal plunder at the local level. Would you be okay with healthcare funded at the local level? If you're making such a distinction then ultimately you agree of limited legal plunder...just not at the federal level because somehow that's just bad. This is my grievance with Bastiat. He writes this rigid and narrow definition in the law, but in reality he advocated for tariffs and subsidies.

If the federal level of government institutes a gas tax (which it already does on the manufacturers), in order to fund non-Constitutional projects, that is legal plunder. If a State or local municipality does likewise, that is legal plunder. Today in Washington State, the Governor will sign a bill from the state legislature that applies a gas tax of 12 cents on 1 August, and another 4.9 cents next year, making it the highest gas tax in the country. This is "required", we are told, because the budget just can't handle the road projects that are desparately needed. But the problem is that Washington state wastes money on non-essential items, bloated school budgets, poor road construction and maintenance, allows abuse of the roads by private motorists, and many other wasteful practicies. So I consider the gax tax increase to be legal plunder because of the state's mismanagement the funds it already recieves. And the governor, Jay Inslee, wanted a $1 per gallon carbon tax instead! And nearly got it, too. In Washington state, there are two sides: the West side of the Cascades and the East side. The West takes the lion's share of any revenue for virtually all projects, roads or otherwise, while the East gets a disproportionate amount. The West side has many large and loud special interests that lobby Olympia to get their desires funded, but the East side can only send small delegations to the state halls for their voice to be heard. However, the East side sends in about half of all state revenue due to the large agriculture base it has. This is a state of established legal plunder.

Locally, an example could be found in Spokane. The City Council is considering establishing bike paths on a number of streets, doing so by reducing each road width by a full or partial lane to accomodate the paths, and at a cost of over half the current city transportation budget, to be funded by a local tax levy. Less than 1% of the populace uses bicycles often enough, yet that 1% lobby hard. They want something they cannot do themselves and do not need, so they are asking the local legislature to steal from the other 99% to have what they want. That is greed.

And how is healthcare an individual responsibility fully? On a personal level, I know I need to eat right, brush my teeth, go get check ups, etc, etc. That is personal responsibility and I agree it needs to be done on an individual labor. But I have resources to do so. If a person doesn't have resources how are they to take care of themselves? If havenot's do not have access or money for preventative medicine how far does individual responsibility take a person to a healthy life? Jayne in Firefly has a great quote, "Ten percent of nothing is—let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin'. Carry the nothin'...".

Ah, yes, Jayne...the man with his own town and song to go with it. I love that guy.

"Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness." I don't see "healthcare" in there anywhere...Maybe it's in another section...

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, my friend. If the Founders thought that healthcare was a right, they would have written it in. They didn't. They understood that sickness is a part of life. If you have the money to pay for a doctor, then you might get better or you might not. If you don't have the money, then that's your lot in life. That's one of the driving forces behind innovation and hard work - having enough money to have the things you want, including healthcare. If all those things are provided to you, then what's your motivation to work, contribute to society, and innovate?

Nobody has nothin'. Sure, a lot of people might not have a lot, but by what morality are they entitled to what I have worked to earn? It's Marxist thinking to presume that I am beholden to anybody else for any reason, that their rights are somehow more important than mine, that my right to own and control my property is in some way subservient to their right to have bike lanes, cheaper health insurance and a better chance of their kid getting into college just because they are a minority. Everybody is responsible for their own choices, and for the place they are in.

I do agree with you on one aspect though. I don't like the idea of people being dependent on government. Rather, I wish/hope social programs allow those who are poor a chance to move up. To me, social programs done right is a way that a country can invest in its society. If my tax money allows someone or a family to become productive in the future I'll allow it.

I'm happy that you find satisfaction with knowing that your money is going toward something that you feel is a worthwhile cause. I truly do - not bullshitting you. But why do you feel that unless I feel the same way about it that I'm somehow wrong?

What "social programs" do I agree with? Libraries. Schools funded and controlled at the local (town or county) level, but open to all if they wish to attend, and allow private schools as well. And that's about it that I can think of off the top of my head.

This is a nation of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Each person has the same chance of making of themselves what they will. If their fathers and grandfathers planned well and provided a means for them to have a better chance, then good on them. But that does not in any way mean that those that had deadbeat dads and gambler grandpappies deserve a share.

My family and I are perfect examples of this. I grew up poor - my mother was a single mom of 3 kids and struggled to put food on the table and barely made the payments on the trailer we lived in. There were times when all we had was the van and the 4 suitcases that in it. But we didn't sink to begging and pleading to others to take care of us. Sure, we accepted charity if it was offered, but we didn't ask for it, nor did we petition the government (at any level) to take care of us. I was homeschooled, and I feel at home in libraries because I mostly self-educated past the 3rd or 4th grade. I never attended public school until my sophmore year, and then I coasted through classes because I was already knew the material. My mother is still poor through her own choices (she has had many chances to be financially secure which she turned away from, including help from me), but my wife and I are doing well, and should be millionaires when we retire. If I can do it, then so can anybody else. And if they can't or won't, it's not my responsibility to cover for their inability to do so.

I guess that since I worked so hard for what I have I'm sensitive to others taking it away for things I don't think are important, or that I feel they can do themselves if the simply make the choice to do so.

[Aitrus]

What!?!? Wrong wrong wrong wrong, it was the exact opposite. Show me one declaration made by the southern states as to the reason for leaving the union that doesn't cite slavery.

Slavery was all over every one of their declarations. That is rewriting history.

Your only argument for states rights is states rights to continue and perpetuate slavery.

In fact this is from the "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"

The first state to leave the Union.

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."

See that, in the very first part they distinguish themselves based on slavery as "slaveholding States".

Slaves are mentioned 18 times in their declaration. Claiming slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War is REVISIONIST HISTORY.

Claiming slavery was the cause of the Civil War is revisionist. Slavery was but a part, not the whole thing. At the time the Civil War was delcared slavery was still federally allowed, and only a few Northern states had outlawed it.

Slavery wasn't the only issue that was argued over. Taxes, tarrifs, and other issues were at play too, but the war itself was over the fact that the Federal Government started the argument when the Constitution said that they should not have - it didn't matter what the issue was, they tried to assert power it did not have at the time, and the States pushed back. Today the argument could be over tobacco farming producing harmful products, global warming, green energy mandates, 2nd Amendment issues, religion issues, public education, interstate commerce regulations, or whatever else might be source of a disagreement. But at the core of it would be the Federal Government telling the States what to do, and the States asserting independence according to 9th and 10th Amendments.

It was a State's Rights vs. Federal Control argument. The argument boiled down to: Does the Federal Government have the right to tell the States how to conduct their affairs within their own borders and superscede the 9th and 10th amendments? The answer, obviously, is "Yes, it does". Which is 100% against the Founding Fathers.

You might not like it, but that's what the argument was about. It's romanticizing the confilct to make it about slavery, and not about State's Rights.

[ArrieS]

It was a State's Rights vs. Federal Control argument. The argument boiled down to: Does the Federal Government have the right to tell the States how to conduct their affairs within their own borders and superscede the 9th and 10th amendments? The answer, obviously, is "Yes, it does". Which is 100% against the Founding Fathers.

Wrong,

I quote again the Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

See that South Carolina is complaining the Federal Government is allowing free states to grant citizenship, particularly the right to vote. Voting rights at this time were States rights and not the prevue of the Federal Government.

You're simply wrong because South Carolina is complaining the Federal Government isn't quashing the right to vote for black men which was a states right to determine at that time. Or in other words, complaining the Federal Government was in fact respecting states rights in free states.

They wanted the Federal government to violate states rights!

Taxes, tarrifs, and other issues were at play too...

Please cite for me examples of this claim.

[Aitrus]

Of course in your whole response you failed to address the issue that in 1814 our federal government started drafting a proposal for an income tax. The only thing that stop it was the treaty of Ghent in 1815.

Wouldn't an income tax grant them a carte blanche? Not a tax that would have been limited as you claim was their intent? See, we have an attempt to create a blanket tax that would have been monstrous by your standards in our early government.

And the income tax was rightly defeated. Just because a proposal was drafted doesn't mean they went through with it. It means they considered an idea, found it wanting, and abandoned it. In the years of the Continental Congress they also debated creating other forms of government than a Republic, including establishing a monarchy with Washington as the king. Just because they considered the idea doesn't mean that it was their intention. Don't confuse the exploration of an idea with that of actually following through with it and claim that it makes my view null and void.

First, how can you say the government started out limited or zero power when our nation was founded it had the power to declare a whole people as not human and property? So a Government that has the power to legally define a person as a non-person is limited in power and not tyrannical by your logic?

I can because that was how the Founders viewed it, as evidenced by many of their writings and debates, and by what they finally drafted and signed as the founding documents of our nation. The Continental Congress had extremely limited powers. The ratification of the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, didn't declare slaves as persons or as non-persons. They didn't touch the issue at all. They only established the government, its limited functions, and the Rights that were protected. Only later was the question of whether or not slaves were people was discussed at length. Lincoln was of the opinion that they were, and favored freeing them and sending all of them back to their country or origin.

[Aitrus]

Wrong,

I quote again the Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

See that South Carolina is complaining the Federal Government is allowing free states to grant citizenship, particularly the right to vote. Voting rights at this time were States rights and not the prevue of the Federal Government.

You're simply wrong because South Carolina is complaining the Federal Government isn't quashing the right to vote for black men which was a states right to determine at that time. Or in other words, complaining the Federal Government was in fact respecting states rights in free states.

They wanted the Federal government to violate states rights!

Quite the opposite, and in doing so you prove my case for me.

"...by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens". The Federal level was trying to tell States what to do within their own borders. The States disagreed.

South Carolina was basically saying "Other States allowed slaves to become citizens. We disagree with this view and have not done so within our own borders. We resent that you are trying to tell us that we must do this as well."

And off to war they went.

Taxes, tarrifs, and other issues were at play too...

Please cite for me examples of this claim.

http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/36974

Also, from http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

"The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal rights."

And then further down the page:

"Then there was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned.

This inflammatory piece of legislation, passed with the aid of Northern politicians, imposed a tax or duty on imported goods that caused practically everything purchased in the South to rise nearly half-again in price. This was because the South had become used to shipping its cotton to England and France and in return receiving boatloads of inexpensive European goods, including clothing made from its own cotton. However, as years went by, the North, particularly New England, had developed cotton mills of its own—as well as leather and harness manufactories, iron and steel mills, arms and munitions factories, potteries, furniture makers, silversmiths and so forth. And with the new tariff putting foreign goods out of financial reach, Southerners were forced to buy these products from the North at what they considered exorbitant costs.

Smart money might have concluded it would be wise for the South to build its own cotton mills and its own manufactories, but its people were too attached to growing cotton. A visitor in the 1830s described the relentless cycle of the planters’ misallocation of spare capital: “To sell cotton to buy Negroes—to make more cotton to buy more Negroes—‘ad infinitum.’”

Such was the Southern mindset, but the tariff nearly kicked off the war 30 years early because, as the furor rose, South Carolina’s Calhoun, who was then running for vice president of the United States, declared that states—his own state in particular—were under no obligation to obey the federal tariff law, or to collect it from ships entering its harbors. Later, South Carolina legislators acted on this assertion and defied the federal government to overrule them, lest the state secede. This set off the Nullification Crisis, which held in theory (or wishful thinking) that a state could nullify or ignore any federal law it held was not in its best interests. The crisis was defused only when President Andrew Jackson sent warships into Charleston Harbor—but it also marked the first time a Southern state had threatened to secede from the Union.

The incident also set the stage for the states’ rights dispute, pitting state laws against the notion of federal sovereignty—an argument which became ongoing into the next century, and the next. “States’ rights” also became a Southern watchword for Northern (or “Yankee”) intrusion on the Southern lifestyle. States’ rights political parties sprang up over the South; one particular example of just how volatile the issue had become was embodied in the decision in 1831 of Nathaniel and Elizabeth Gist (ironically from Union, S.C.) to name their firstborn son “States Rights Gist,” a name he bore proudly until November 30, 1864, when, as a Confederate brigadier general, he was shot and killed leading his men at the Battle of Franklin in Tennessee."

[ArrieS]

And the income tax was rightly defeated. Just because they considered the idea doesn't mean that it was their intention.

Oh it was defeated? I don't remember it being defeated. That's right it was being worked on up to the very end of the war. If they worked on a proposal up to the very end of the war I think that clearly shows their intent to use it to fund the war, nice try.

The ratification of the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, didn't declare slaves as persons or as non-persons.

Oh but it did. It declared they only count as Three-fifths a person. Not a complete person, if you aren't a complete person than what are you if not a non-person in the eyes of the law?