Re: Further costs of war
Forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:02:01 +0100 (MET) From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Subject: Further Costs of War
Hi Monty, I have a couple of questions...
A few more comments on World War II.
Had World War II been prevented, along with deaths of 50 million or so people, we would also have been spared (in the United States) income tax withholding. Previously the only people paying income tax were fairly wealthy and there was no withholding.
Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in any insight you might have. As to taxation and withholding: ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [25 February 1913.] Notice the date of implimentation, considerably before WWII, it is in fact the year before the US became involved in WWI. Perhaps you meant WWI instead of WWII? Citizens of the US have been paying taxes since 1914.
I doubt very much that income tax withholding would have been accepted if the War were not used to justify it. ("You don't want to pay taxes? What are you, a traitor?")
What war? The taxes came about because of issues other than fighting a war which hadn't even happened yet. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
At 3:43 pm -0500 on 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote:
ARTICLE XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [25 February 1913.]
Wasn't the 16th ammendment the result of the constitutional challenge of a Spanish American War tax? Or maybe it was used to fund whatever progressive stuff TR was up to at the time. It seems to me that, from the Spanish American War until the ammendment's implementation would be a reasonable timeframe to get an ammendment effort underway, passed by congress, and ratified by the states. Given the popularity of the war, it wouldn't surprise me if a tax implemented to pay for it would have gone down so easily. I know that the income tax was first attempted as a temporary measure in the Civil War, without much compliance, I bet, given that was a book entry tax being tried in a predominantly cash-settled bearer certificate economy, and, that, when they tried to do it again, sometime in the Third Great Awakening :-), the Supreme Court struck it down. Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Doesn't mean the damn thing shouldn't be repealed, though there's fat chance of that. Oh well. Fortunately, we can fight back with digital bearer settlement. Someday. Soon, I hope. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>
At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote: ...
Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in any insight you might have.
Not entering the war. There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked the Japanese in various ways. (I'm not saying the Japanese were blameless, or lily-white, or"nice," etc., only that most historians agree--and Japanese archives support--that the Japanese were motivated to attack Pearl Harbor in the hope that a devastating first blow would sink enough ships, etc., to cause America to back off in its actions in the ironically named Pacific.) Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us. As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war. In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over other armies? (The "evilness" of Hitler is not the issue, either. Else Stalin and Mao would have been cause enough to go to war.) (And the issue of "alliances" is even murkier. The states of the U.S. have little to fear from Canada or Mexico, so what use have "alliances" ever been? Much could be said about the pros and cons of alliances, but I am persuaded that the U.S. should avoid them. And certainly the monarchic alliances which led to the First World War--a war fought over the Hapsburg Dynasty and assorted intrigues==were completely absurd. Even the proximate cause of the U.S. entry into the war, the sinking of the "Lusitania" and related events, was duplicitous on the part of the U.S. government...the U.S. gov't. was "taking sides" by shipping munitions on the L.) As for the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem...not my war. A tragedy and a horrible atrocity, to be sure, but so were the forced starvation of the Kulaks and others, the decision by the PRC government to deliberately sacrifice a region of 30 million peasants, the "killing fields" of Cambodia, the Rwanda massacres, and so on. Just as invading Cambodia to save a million Cambodians was not justified, just as invading Rwanda to stop the killing of a million Hutus or Tutsis or both, so, too, was an invasion of Europe to save some Frenchmen or some Jews or Gypsies unjustified. If the U.S. had not become "policeman to the world" in the early part of this century ("...but carry a big stick"), or, more to the point, if the United States were (emphasis on the plural "were," not "was") highly authonomous and decentralized, it is hard to imagine Illinois or New Hampshire deciding to send their men to die in the Pacific for some abstract notion of "stopping Japanese imperialism." Ditto for the war in Europe, although no doubt many with relatives in Euope would be pressing for mandatory action. Understandable, but ignorable in a free society. Those who wanted to liberate the death camps, or to push Hitler back into Gerrmany, or to kick the Emperor's butt could, of course, simply go over and volunteer. In a free society, mercenaries are legal. The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.
--Tim May
Chuckle. The "war" of 1812 was nearly as much of an internal political struggle over the form the U.S. gov't was to take as was the "civil war." "State's rights" were a key issue, with most of New England strongly opposed to the "war", which was causing New Englanders severe economic loss to to blockades which prevented their trade with England (the enemy). Many did not wish to add additional states beyond the origianl seaboard 13, which would have doomed the new nation to being a British dependant. There was great debate over the form a representative government was to take, with some supporting the idea that the "common" man was too ignorant to perceive long-term issues; some wanted a "house of lords" and "house of commons" as in England, with membership to the "upper" house, the Senate, restricted to an Elitist class. The Monarchists still had a great deal of support in parts of the original thirteen states. The western states, such as Tennessee, were more in favor of supporting a combined "Federal" action against Britain than were the seaboard colonies, as the British were arming the local Indian tribes and inciting uprisings in an effort to block westward expansion. Folks in Tennessee wanted Madison to invade Canada to choke off the supply route. French-speaking New Orleans didn't much care for having been sold to a foreign power, and had closer ties to Spanish Florida than to its new masters in Washington. Andrew Jackson's army did not receive a very warm welcome when he came to "defend" the city form the British; he had difficulty obtaining supplies, and had to declare martial law to maintain control of the city. The trade issues and the "kidnapping" of American merchant seamen are given as "official" reasons for the conflict, but there were many other reasons as well. Without the War of 1812, the "United States" as a single entity may never have emerged, and a loose coalition of states may have remained in its place, probably as a British dependant. Britian would have likely succeeded in regulating western movement, at least in the northern part of North America, and we'd all be talking like Phil. The War of 1812 had arguably as great an impact on the Federal vs. States issue as did the Civil War. Interesting to see you "justifiying" this. :) -r.w.
At 9:12 AM -0700 11/24/97, Rabid Wombat wrote:
The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.
--Tim May
Chuckle. The "war" of 1812 was nearly as much of an internal political struggle over the form the U.S. gov't was to take as was the "civil war."
That's why I was careful to say, "arguably." It may or may not have been a justifiable war, but at least it involved foreign powers acting on or against actual domestic, contental soil. Something the various later wars did not directly involve. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (4)
-
Jim Choate -
Rabid Wombat -
Robert Hettinga -
Tim May