So now Thomas Sowell is pretending to be Noah Webster? Su-weeet - and, oh, by the way; as everyone surely knows, 'empathy' is the use of a toothbrush and 'God is Love'. Hell, let's just reduce all nouns to one while we're at it. I mean, who needs all of that variety in language anyway? 'Poetry' has little value in economics.

Mike, I agree "that the founders never intended a theocracy or any given denomination should dominate the endeavors of man" and that would indeed include those of 'no theism' ('a-theism' - which is not the absence of 'belief in anything' but simply, if it's actual a-theism, the absence of a belief in supernatural forces). In the end, a person's perspective is all 'belief' anyway insofar as it's the case that 'what we know' is only our best attempt at 'building a model' in our mind of what's going on 'out there'. That's where 'actuality' diverges, to some degree, be it noticable or not, from one's 'reality'. If that's too far in the O-zone for you, give it time.

Re: "I believe there is good and bad in all religious persuasions": The Arthurian Legends (It's not that they're the last word on the subject but they do serve as one, among many, other 'modeling templates' for further contemplation of the subject of 'good' and 'bad'.) have the Holy Grail being brought down from heaven by the 'neutral angels' - not by the 'good' angels or the 'bad' (i.e. 'evil' - Lucifer) angels but by those of neither attribute. I personally take the position that the ideas of 'good' and/or 'bad' are both simple (in the truest sense of the word) and useless insofar as they almost exclusively denote only the predilections and predispositions of the speaker/author as projected upon the object of their prejudice at that time.

"It was the same time tested principles and law, taking into consideration human tendencies ... All freedoms enjoyed in the U.S. today are derivatives of a dying creed." - Now that makes perfect sense. I couldn't agree more.

I noticed you have a few '-isms' sprinkled about for good measure. That sometimes useful 'shorthand' still obscures and obviates the need for details or detailed evaluations. In most cases the use of '-isms' boils down to name calling and no more. Its usefulness is about the same. Usually, by the time one resorts to that, it's a sure indication that the case has been lost and that it's the avenue of last resort - then on to war where we can depend on emotion for motivation.

Oh yeah, the hand that feeds me is harsh. It's mine.

E. Archer; (in reference to 'Christian Based Constitution' and other fictions) In the interest of offering a possible analytical perspective on the advocacy of any religion/ideology (I defy anyone to distinguish the two from each other both in their functionality and fictionality, one fiction being that 'mine' is religion' and 'yours' is ideology or mythology) as a 'solution' to any problem I'd like to offer the following (asserted as dogma, to be read as grist for the mill) for you're your consideration. The advocating of a religion as an answer to anything is always an indication of only one thing: the person advocating a religion/ideology (any religion or ideology including all of the '-isms' and '-ities' ) as such a solution, has either run out of, or has never had, any practical solutions to offer to issues/situations they have limited comprehension of, or experience with. You don't offer "That wouldn't be a problem if you only had faith" or "It wouldn't be a problem if we only went back to a Christian Based Constitution" or "It's in God's hands" or "We must pray for 'X'" or "Our moral decline has caused that." as a reply to "We're out of hamburger relish" because you've probably figured out an actual solution to the 'no-relish' problem. It's the 'problems' for which we have no current solutions that are favored for relegation to the universe of the supernatural and fictitious (religion/ideology). That's how 'Intelligent Design' manages to appeal to 'non-scientific' ideologues. They can't imagine that a 'void' in our current understanding of evolution might be temporary so they resort to the idea that the whole thing is too complex to be understood (which may be true for them). They live in an illusion that the world is somehow more 'fixed' than that which evolution would allow. Our Bible is not an evolving document. It's fixed. They've not read enough history and sometimes haven't gotten out enough. Hello -- what year is it? Advocating religion/ideology as a solution to any problem is the sleaziest possible form of abrogating all personal responsibility towards finding an actual solution to that issue or problem. The appeal, of ideological trite-isms as 'answers' to problems, is that they are fixed, easy, simple and vague. They 'fix' the world into one easy, unchanging paradigm. Falling prey to that appeal is the amber coffin of the fly - it's pretty and decorative. These trite-isms are the hallmark both of a lack of thought, and a finely honed ear and talent for parroting. They are that 'fixed compass' (like the highly touted 'moral compass' we all love so much) that obviates the need to evaluate (evaluation uses too much energy for some tastes) each situation as it presents itself. It's using a hammer for brain surgery because that's the only tool you've got. If you decide, and it is a decision, to 'peg' your compass to one position, it will always tell you that you're going in the right direction no matter what direction you choose to go in. That's comforting -- sufficiently comforting to some that they will choose to do that over the 'uncertainty' of having to adjust ones heading at every deviation from their aim. These people really do 'mean well' and are the object of that old saw "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You have to ask yourself how well the strategy of 'pegging one's compass' would work behind the wheel of a car or the controls of an aircraft. Despite the fact that it's a comforting approach to selecting one's 'direction', 'pegging your compass', contrary to the illusion it provides, carries with it a high likelihood of your ending up anywhere but where you'd intended to go when you started. The most obvious current example of that is the prosecution of the ideology-based war in or 'on' Iraq. BTW, I think it's spelled $hit -- LOL.

In other words, a "Christian Based" Constitution is the solution to all problems. Right! I think I saw that gum-wrapper motto recently too. Now, that's great humor.

Oh yeah, why exactly are Canadian Pharmacy purchases so popular with Americans of limited means? Fergodssake let's not take advantage of their system since our's is so superior.

Logan, Just for the sake of reference:
Pride: An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit. - Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness. - To indulge (oneself) in a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction. - AHD

The Books of Proverbs, chapter 16:18 - Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Logan; 'ROT' - LOL Well, since my name's been invoked, ('the tiniest excuse will do quite nicely, thank you very much' he said leerily looking over his shoulder) here goes. - Oh yeah, let's not do the 'Military Intelligence' skit just now - OK? - It's Sacred Cow Ostrich- tipping time! <;}

"Charity and compassion are what they are because they are established on choice. The charitable man didn't HAVE to give the beggar a job, but he did anyway."
I take it that no one attentive to the actual history of societies in general would call that 'gross speculation' - lol - probably because it's pure fantasy. Would that there were such consistency of compassion in human nature.

As you said, "However, because such words are used, such as: charity, compassion, ... Just because something is called by a particular name, doesn't mean it abides by its definition."

Although the SSA's 'mission statement' does say that their mission is "To advance the economic security of the nation’s people through compassionate and vigilant leadership in shaping and managing America's Social Security programs.", 'personal' compassion is hardly an aspect of the debate over or about the Social Security Act. I do believe that it's you who've attached 'charity' to the issue of Social Security to bolster your premise. - We're not talking about 'charity' or compassion when we talk about Social security. Neither 'charity' nor compassion have, in fact, anything to do with Social Security - nothing. Confusing or equating 'charity' and/or compassion with Social Security is a bit like confusing or equating affection for (romantic or not) with responsibility (to/for) - a common confusion which tends to abate with the accumulation of experience. While affection may accompany responsibility, there's no requirement that either of the two ever accompany the other.

What we are talking about when we talk about Social Security is a social compact aimed at avoiding the kinds of situations that made Charles Dickens famous when writing about the social injustices prevalent in the 1800s, foisted on those least able to withstand them during times when 'charity' was voluntary, compassion was in short supply (not much changes), and the churches still had good control of most of the population in almost every nation on earth (some things do change despite the best efforts of the clergy). There will be those reading this who will say "But this isn't Britain in the 1800s". No, it isn't Britain in the 1800s. We're not talking about the Britain of that time. We're talking about human nature as relates to the less fortunate of the society they live in - at any time.

How well did 'charity' and compassion work during the Irish potato famine?

Ah, the good old days when 'charity' and compassion worked so well towards our lower classes (in every country, at all times), as it did for the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia not to mention towards the slaves we were justified in holding! How we do miss 'them good ole days'.

"... to labal (label) "Christians" as "the most rapacious thieves ever seen in history" is gross speculation."
There's plenty of history to substantiate that Christians can credibly lay claim to that title: The 'Crusades' stand out in that category. The 'taking' of indigenous lands (our 'country' being only one) probably falls into that category. The subsequent enslavement of the indigenous populations of the Americas followed by their near extermination followed by the importation of new slaves from Africa might, just might, fall into that category. The imperialism of the 19th and 20th century by not only the 'Christian' nations of Europe who plundered the Middle East, Africa, and India, but also of the US (who dominated and plundered Hawaii, Puerto Rico, The Phillipines, Cuba, and, oh yeah, 'freed' Texas from Mexico) might, in the minds of the people of the countries that were dominated and/or plundered, be viewed as motivated by thievery. I know, I know ... it was for their own good (not much changes).

How is it, Simon, that in Capitalist America, even our poor have a better standard of living than the middle-class of some Socialist nations?
Well, it has been so for the last 60 or so 'socialistic' years hasn't it? Those were also, coincidentally, the post WWII years when almost all of the 'industrialized' nations except the US were still fully recovering from the war and we were in a position to be able to 'harvest' enormous natural resources at minuscule costs from around the globe with hardly anyone able to object. It's a new day on that count. How's your gas bill these days? How's your food bill? We indeed have a lot to be proud of. Social Security is part of that equation. Corporate control of our government is not. Simon has a valid point - several actually.

Equating the nature of software with the nature of today's currency is akin to equating a C++ manual with a handshake-promise to provide such a book - one has utility, the other is a promise to provide such utility at some future date without a contract to enforce the promise. The handshake-promise is good if the promisor lives up to the promise by their own volition. The promisee has no way of enforcing the promise. The manual is real. The promise is transient. Our 'currency' is as good as our belief that it is. If this 'airline of currency' ever goes bankrupt or looses the faith/belief of the people using it, there'll be no 'refund'; there's no 'real estate' to back it up. Comparing the 'promise' of software to our currency would be more apropos.

Anon, Reston: Galbraith is on your side if your other posts are any indication - lol. He actually bridges the 'right/left' philosophical divide. Some would say he's 'socialistic' - he is, after all, Canadian - lol. I regard him as 'pragmatic'. Milton Friedman and Galbraith do not agree on a substantial number of points. Their primary area of contention is the issue of 'laissez-faire' (unrestrained). See: Galbraith Profile

So, just to really make everyone's day (and nightmare), It's Not Over When the Tax Lady Sings.

You're right. You mean to say they're as feckless as our government - still? You mean to say they 'follow' the law about as well as 'we' do as a nation? Gasp, Shock, and Awe!!

Sorry, that's the Indian Government web site.

Last Licks 1 - Mwahahaha: No, you didn't say anything about a 'ceremony'. I did. I'd like to know what, beyond (or differing from) a ceremony, your initial notion could actually be. it's such a cop-out to leave something undefined and then pretend to be able to use it to support an argument. That's partly why I included that particular challenge to you. It's the evil sister of that "If you don't know ..." thing. You can't get anywhere in a discussion if the terms are undefined. A 'thing' doesn't exist if it's not defined. Unfortunately, the structure of our language lumps 'concepts' in with things that exist. A concept has no existence, no definition - it's not a 'thing' except in that it's treated as a noun in English. A discussion about 'things' undefined is meaningless and goes on forever without resolution - much like discussions about 'things' which don't exist in general. That's how discussions about 'religion' or 'God' end up never being resolved. There's nothing (no thing) to talk about but people just go on as if what they were saying made sense. If that's good enough for you then so be it.

'Nice' is the perfect word. If you look up the word 'nice' you'll find you're exactly right (from Latin 'nescius'). But you're referring to a 'rite of passage' here - a 'ceremony'. The 'licensing' issue is different altogether. Licensing is where the government really does get control of the most minute details of the lives of the population and always in response to a real or percieved 'problem', i.e. ATF, vehicle 'control', etc., etc.. The 'Social Security' number system was never originally intended to serve as an 'identification' number in the way it's use has been morphed into today. For the sake of expedience however, we have what we have today. Indeed, it won't be long before you'll need a 'licence' to have children. It sounds strange today but so did satellite radar and GPS thirty years ago when they were being developed.

How, exactly would you propose to "actually teach the power and responsibility of a signature -- that is to make a contract and to promise."?

The Social Security system and its components don't fall under the rubric of contract law but you may regard it as you wish. I'm just addressing what is, not what I'd prefer to see it as (that's another world).

If you think school attendance in India is voluntary, you probably failed to read www.india.gov.in - the Indian Government web site.

Recall Leona Helmsley - "the Queen of Mean."

E. A.: Yes but 'personal' and 'compulsory' are not mutually exclusive. When one says "I often thought that at graduation from high school we should all make our own personal declaration of our commitment to liberty and justice for all, and sign it like the founders did." I have no idea how one would extricate 'all' and 'sign' from inevitable institutionalization of the 'ceremony'. It is, after all, only a ceremony insofar as a 'declaration' written or spoken is still worth the 'paper' it's 'written' on. It's deceptive and static. Any 'commitment' it refers to is either there or it isn't - like it is or isn't in a friendship, a job, a group, or even a marriage contract. My question therefore is; for whose benefit is such a ceremony to be performed? In Nazi Germany you'd fail to say 'Heil Hitler' at the peril of being turned in for not 'towing the party line' so, of course, you'd say it and then curse under your breath unless you were actually 'in lockstep' with the idiots. For whose benefit? Let's not conflate the rules of the military (an army) with the rules of civilian life - at least not until we become a military state, shall we? It's currently (again and) still an option to make a contract with the military to become their property for a duration though it may not be so for long. I dare say that students and other civilians are not yet under military law until they 'sign up'.

'Commitments' to independence preceded any 'signings' of any enlistments, both before and after the formation (in June 1775) of the Continental Army. You don't go and fight without a commitment - paper or not. You don't need a ceremony to validate that commitment although, in the interest of heightening the psychological pressures to maintain strict adherence to the military code (for an army that's a good thing), 'signed declarations', among other forms of control, are a useful adjunct. But for whose benefit? The French Underground Resistance (men and women and sometimes the rather young ) would have never signed anything to the effect of a 'declaration' to their cause though they were as dedicated and heroic in their work as any man on the front lines. I mean, I think we're talking here about the difference between silent prayer and making a big fat public display of one's self while doing it on the street corner. For whose benefit?

"The militiamen fighting in the Continental Army may have been illiterate -- it didn't make their contribution and sacrifices any less" Well, that was my original point.

So I'm puzzled as to what the precise purpose or function of such a 'declaration' as you proposed would be. I know what the 'tribal' function (of cohesiveness as it is in the military) would be but I'd like to hear some expression from you about what you think its function would be with respect to what it would accomplish beyond what would exist in its absence in the civilian population of the US.

'Standing up for oneself': Now, that 'sounds' good, doesn't it? I do believe however, that it's a blurry (not specific) concept not unlike 'being spiritual' which sounds appealing and defies description. Now, I may have some inkling about what people intend to convey with phrases like that (which phrases indicate fuzzy thinking or 'unbaked' notions) but, usually, when I ask someone to specify what they mean by such phrases they tend to reply with something along the lines of "Well, if you don't know what that means then I can't help you". That's never a helpful response but it does dodge the problem in their view. It also indicates they have no idea of what a specific meaning of such a phrase might be. "Our new American government could not come into being without it" is a bit presumptuous. How can you assert that such a nebulous concept is a prerequisite to anything?

Ok, enough with the anecdotal indulgences already. I'm not entirely sure India's approach to much of anything would be sufficiently alluring to you to get you to move there permanently - yet. Granted, they've done a remarkable job in providing education especially given their situation while we are losing ground in the sciences. Nevertheless, the number of PhDs they have doesn't keep them from having polls like "Should Caste-based reservation of seats be allowed in our Education System?" - http://www.indiaeducation.info/ - - They're also not yet at the point of educating every child in the nation though that's the goal.

[Education has been a thrust sector ever since India attained independence. The leaders of independent India had formulated provisions for primary formal and non-formal education to realise the goal of Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE). The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act 2002, enacted in December 2002 seeks to make education free and compulsory, and a Fundamental Right for all children in the age-group 6-14 years. A new Article, 21A in Part III ["Fundamental Rights"] of the Constitution has been introduced to accentuate this. It reads: The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.■ ... There are other programmes for compulsory primary education, especially for girls. The Kasturba Gandhi Shiksha Yojana aims to establish residential schools for girls in all the districts, which have a particularly low female literacy rate. Institutes like National Bal Bhavan encourages children to pursue activities as per their liking, and thus enhance their creative potential. Other programmes, like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Mid Day Meal Scheme have been introduced with the intention of attracting more children (and parents) towards literacy.] - http://www.india.gov.in/citizen/primary_education.php - - - So I'm puzzled as to why, with so much government intervention into the lives of Indians, you would select India as somehow exemplary of your ideals. Let's try to keep separate the primary levels of education from advanced studies for the purpose of this discussion.

My solution to our 'primary school' academic mess would not be terribly appealing because I would wield a heavy hand and insist we do whatever works to impart the skills, (math, sciences, languages, history, arts, and critical thinking/philosophies). That's not very democratic but then we're talking about minors here. I have no idea how, if it's in fact the case, you may have gotten the notion that I disagree with Jefferson. I happen to have the idea that you missed the tenor of his writings as contextualized in the society of the time. Perhaps you've missed the tenor of what I've said as well. I mean, you say "Face it, MOST children would rather go to school and learn than not." as if to imply that I've differed on that count. Please show me where I have if you think that's the case.

What's this 'ugly people' thing about anyway? And what might looks have to do with education - or the state - or with anything that's 'organized'? Looks count interpersonally to SOME people - sometimes. We'll get ya a face-lift, ok? - Oh ... wait, ... let's apply for a government grant for that one, shall we? LOL - - As I said, there's no such thing as a 'compulsory contract'. You'd do well to get some clarity as to the differences between 'contract law' and the laws surrounding the implementation of 'public' education before trying to draw a comparison between the two. It's a mistake to confuse aspects of one with aspects of the other.

Oh yeah, 'freedom' - please define THAT one for me as well and, while you're at it, define 'love' and 'hate' and 'valor' and 'honor' and 'nobility' and any number of other 'concepts' that are sufficiently nebulous to rally around without having much of a clue as to what they mean to others.

"... they fought in defense of their self-declared freedoms. Forget about the paper -- the declaration comes from within." - By George (pick your George), ... I think you've GOT it!

BTW, Thanks for the HTML tip. It's always obvious AFTER you've been told - duhhh - LOL.

You're right about the 'true' (as in possessing fidelity to something) defenders of liberty having made a personal commitment as relates to the War of Independence. But that's not the realm we're discussing. We're discussing the implementation of a compulsory (via peer pressure or state pressure?) SIGNED pledge of allegiance (reference your entry - "at graduation from high school we should all make our own personal declaration of our commitment to liberty and justice for all, and sign it like the founders did."). - - - "When the war began, the Americans did not have a regular army (also known as a "standing army"). Each colony had traditionally provided for its own defenses through the use of local militia. Militiamen served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of regular soldiers, but were occasionally effective against regular troops. American militia were sometimes adept at partisan warfare, and were particularly effective at suppressing Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area." - wikipedia - - - There WAS no army into which to 'enlist'. Do you think they, most of them anyway, even KNEW how to sign their name, let alone 'write' some oath of 'commitment'? Dream on. They were largely farmers without much, if any, education. The present day instances you refer to, where signatures are required, properly fall under the rubric of 'contract law' as you have alluded to. 'Contract law' refers to, by definition of 'contract', 'agreements' entered into voluntarily by both parties (in the absence of duress). There is no such thing as a 'forced' contract - period. That's what the law surrounding 'contracts' says. The law makes a distinction between a 'privilege' and a 'right'. It regards driving to be a 'privilege'. You don't 'need' to drive. Paper can record a 'contract' - it doesn't make for commitments but I think I hit that point already. 'Build' a new 'context' that comports with things as they are. Oh yeah, I, as a general rule, have no bias, pro or con, with regard to 'ist-isms' or 'isms'. I find them unhelpful in viewing problems and/or situations. They seem to serve one function; to muddy the waters and mislead by obscuring the issues. They're basically good for name-calling and when you start name-calling, it's the surest sign you'll ever get that you've lost your case and have nowhere to turn except the ice-cream tub. Refer to 'Axis of Evil' or 'Evil-doers'. Bring on the ice-cream truck! - - - I declare (I know you'll like this) my non-commitment to 'isms'. There you have it - my 'commitment' (well, one anyway) - LOL! I do like to imagine that I aim to be pragmatic while not stepping on the toes of others (though, I probably wouldn't lose any sleep over having stepped on toes jutted out in front of me in an attempt to trip me for no good reason). The 'sanctimony' I was referring to has to do with your attempts to shore up an argument with anecdotal 'evidence'. Trust me, if we were to get into the 'my anecdote is more compelling than your anecdote' dance, I'd win, hands down. 'Anecdotal one-upmanship', however, is worthless in a debate about 'merits'. It's good in church though. Regarding the 'lowest common denominator' issue which bedevils EVERY classroom; I already touched on that. If you can afford a private or 'more' private environment for learning, you're blessed beyond most. None of this has anything to do with 'compulsory education'. I imagine it would be just fine if, to 'graduate' any 'level' of education, the only requirement were a set of tests to ascertain proficiency in a subject. I would advocate a national, optional, alternative (I do NOT trust that all localities have the wisdom to avoid watered-down 'testing' criteria given what's happened recently with the sleazy attempts to pawn off 'ID' as 'science'.) standardized set of testing mechanisms such that, if you passed, you could just get the credit for having mastered a subject in the same way that you can 'challenge' a class in college. It's true that our public education system 'sucks' - been there, done that - but, unless we have a core of enlightened parents with an actual education, changing it much is a far-off dream. Yet, it beats no education at all by some small margin. In any event, I do think some mandatory demonstration of 'learning' or mandatory attendance to attempt to deliver such learning is preferable to allowing the development of some huge uneducated mob (who can vote - scary, and maybe clean toilets). And frankly, I'm less concerned with the 'liberties' of minors (or their parents who might not all be as illustrious as yours) than I am with sending them out on their own with the tools to navigate today's world successfully. I still have boundless affection and unending gratitude for those 'education nazi' (lol) instructors who did that for me. BTW, what do you use to get those nice paragraph breaks into your posts? It makes it so much more readable (er, that, technically, would be 'less yucky').

Yes, you're familiar with it I presume. LMFAO - "The tax cuts did not produce the additional tax revenues based on increased productivity that Reagan had promised. The nation's private wealth grew by only 8 percent in the last six years of the Reagan administration. During the Reagan years, the gap widened between the rich and the poor. According to a 1989 survey by the Census Bureau, the wealthiest 40 percent of Americans had their largest share of national income (67.8 percent) and the poorest 40 percent had their lowest share (15.4 percent) in the more than five decades that these statistics had been compiled. Partly because of Reagan's massive defense buildup, the national debt tripled to $2.684 trillion. The trade deficit quadrupled during the Reagan years. He never came close to delivering on his promise to balance the federal budget." - http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/reagan/special/CST-NWS-rrecon.html

An enabling act is a piece of legislation by which a legislature grants an entity which depends on it for authorization or legitimacy to take certain action(s). In reference to the admission of new states into the Union, an enabling act is legislation passed by United States Congress authorizing the people of a territory to frame a constitution. The act also lays down the requirements that must be met as a prerequisite to statehood. These Acts have usually been titled "An Enabling Act for a State of (Name)". With respect to Lincoln's "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" (perhaps we should just refer to the IRS as 'The Office of The Commissioner of Internal Revenue' and be done with the semantics. It would be a direct analogy to 'The Office of The Assessor of The County of [insert name here]' on the local level) ... The agency created to enforce these taxes was named for the internal revenue to be collected (and was formerly called the "Bureau of Internal Revenue"), in contrast to U.S. government institutions that collected external revenue through duties and tariffs. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. In 1894, Congress revived the income tax, but the following year the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were direct taxes on property, and that the statute in question was unconstitutional because it had not apportioned the direct taxes among the states according to population. In 1913, however, the states ratified the 16th Amendment, which removed the requirement that income taxes (whether considered direct or indirect taxes) be apportioned by population. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Internal_Revenue_Service -|- The 16th Amendment: 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. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the Congress a new power to tax incomes, as Congress already had that power. Although an income tax on income from property had been deemed (under Pollock) to be a direct tax, and an income tax on wages, etc., had been deemed to be an indirect tax (an excise), the Court in Brushaber decided that, after the Sixteenth Amendment, the Constitution allows Congress to tax any incomes without apportionment (and without regard to any census or enumeration) regardless of "source" -- that is, regardless of whether the particular income tax is deemed direct (such as a tax on income from property) or indirect (i.e., an excise, such as a tax on income from labor). The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax constitutionally irrelevant with respect to income taxes. In Brushaber, the Court upheld the validity of the Federal income tax. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution -|- Social Security, AKA the "Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance" program (OASDI), in reference to its three components was initially signed into law by FDR in 1935. -|- The other famous 'Enabling Act' was Hitler's Enabling Act : On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The 'distress' had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising. On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered in a show of force around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!" They also stood inside in the hallways, and even lined the aisles where the vote would take place, glaring menacingly at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will. Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint. "The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag. He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. - http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm -|- Geez, I feel downright 'unattached'. I'd better go out and pick a philosophical matrix through which to view things.

What's to rate? This was during Reagan's reign. To review: Reagan's Social Security reform commission's plan increased government revenues by raising social security payroll taxes, a tax increase that left the poorest 40% of income earners with higher federal taxes than before Reagan's income tax cuts. To cover the budget deficit which was exacerbated by Reagan's military buildup, the administration borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, and by the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public rose from 26% of GDP (1980), to 41% in 1989, the highest level since 1963. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. - source: Wikipedia.

rick, colorado springs/Mike, Norwalk: FDR was first elected at the 1932 presidential election. You should check your mythology better (perhaps at the door). If you're going to use names and/or dates you should at least try to be accurate. In 1862, during the Civil War, President Lincoln and Congress created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. In 1913 the states ratified the 16th Amendment, which removed the requirement that income taxes be apportioned by population. SOME of the blame goes to the pork-'n-perk (perq) that's annually written into the federal budget. WE ... as a nation don't seem to hold our representatives' (that includes the president) feet to the fire on that count because, well, WE - DON'T - CARE! LOL - - Jeesh, it took me a while but I finally figured out that some of the most vehement venom in these blogs has it's genesis in libertarian philosophy not that that's not useful because it is. I just had some difficulty understanding the ground from which it sprang. Please correct me if I've got it wrong.

Re: the 'contract': What does it matter who 'writes' it if it's institutionalized? There's no difference in the requisite 'ceremony'. It's still a metaphorical sibling to a 'Heil Hitler!' If 'ceremonies' meant so much the divorce rate would be zero. Re: 'education': I'm sorry to say that I'm hearing a bit of sanctimony and rationalization-speak in what you say and the way you say it. Keep whistling past the graveyard. (It's a saying) PS, it wouldn't hurt to know the periodic table among not just a few other things. These things can save your life on rare occasion.

E. A., I certainly have no objection to home schooling and that's clearly an option which has the POTENTIAL to produce a better level of education than is available in most of the public school system. The only question may be how keen your skills in advanced math (needed to teach basic math elements well and that DOESN'T MEAN Arithmetic), chemistry, physics (at least 'heat and mechanics', aka 'Newtonian' physics plus things like wave theory especially as relates to EMR), the biological sciences, foreign languages (several), economics (several models), plus a few other disciplines in the arts and world history are. Not all households have the wherewithal to implement that option and it's a distraction from the issue of required education because it's an option within that realm. Public education has always been hit-and-miss depending on the teachers you happen to get. I recall having some excellent teachers and some duds both in lower grades and college. I also recall punishing (LOL) the dolts mercilessly while shining in the classes of the effective and dedicated instructors who were often not the popular ones. Yes, I DID know the difference and, in hindsight, I was absolutely on target with each of them. There was a LOT of wasted time spent, just to make sure the 'class' was keeping up, which could have been spent on the presentation of more material. It wasn't hard to tell those who knew what they were doing from those who just regarded teaching as a 'job'. If you're defending your right to 'home school', well, THAT'S not the issue. I don't think the public school system or anyone else should object to that if the result of that home schooling permits your children to pass standardized testing regimens. It IS good to know how you stack up when you're criticizing competing methodology. If you're teaching them something like metaphysics and nothing else, well, THAT could prove problematic for your children later on. There's not much demand for that sort of thing in the real world (though you'd never know it living in this part of the country - LOL). The mere idea of COMPUSLORY drugs in school is an abomination. I have no idea how the notion (that someone other than the family physician(s) in consultation with the parents could have any say about that sort of thing) might make sense. I don't think we have compulsory religious teaching in the public school system unless there's something brand new going on. As for secular teaching, well, THAT'S everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by 'compulsory indoctrination'. Is there such a thing as 'voluntary indoctrination'? 'Raising' a child is different from 'educating' a child. I wasn't referring to literacy with regard to citizenship. I was referring to literacy with regard to voting which assumes citizenship but requires IMHO, some additional awareness of how politics affects the direction of the nation. It was a veering off course on my part. The constitution defines citizenship and now, due to the Voting Rights Act, defines more clearly who can not be prevented from voting. You've contradicted yourself in your last paragraph. One's 'own' declaration is not the same as an institutionalized, ceremonial chit signing. So are you in favor of compulsory 'empowerment' now? - LOL - I guess I missed the part where our 'founding fathers' made every 'citizen' sign a declaration before fighting on the side of the rebels - like when there were no citizens - yet. David; what's a woed? Is that wike a wabbit? LOL

"... that if this Government hits cruelly certain sections of the Italian people" may just be the dead giveaway to the fact that the taxes levied were designed to be unevenly burdensome.

Jefferson was born a man of privileged and wealth. One man's fortune in having parents of substance and intellect is hardly reflective of a population in general. He, better than most, would have had an insight into the worth of his privileged status and the advantages of the education he was able to be treated to by virtue of his parents' position in life. In such a position of privilege one hardly need rely on, or place much value on any idea along the lines of "It takes a village to raise a child." I guess you're advocating allowing children whose parents either don't want their children to attend school, or children whose parents don't care one way or another, to remain uneducated. It's your prerogative to have such a view. I suspect that the Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Swiss, Germans, Austrians, and most of the rest of the 'first' world that you might demonize as 'socialistic' would differ with you about your assessment that a compelled education would lead them towards totalitarianism. They, of course, have been there and might, just MIGHT, have some idea of what that is. There's a huge difference between abiding by the Constitution voluntarily and signing a chit promising to do so. Neither affects the other. One is a commitment. The other is a piece of worthless show akin to Saddam Hussein's 'public demonstrations of support'. Nice for show and propaganda. OR - are you thinking of attaching future laws of 'allegiance' to the idea? Now, THERE'S a great idea! I'll never know why the founding fathers, with all of their substantial foresight, failed to incorporate such a good idea into the framework of the union they were forging. I guess I prickle at the idea of using devices (signed declarations of allegiance etc., which are common in police states as a mechanism of intimidation) to no actual effect. Loyalty, allegiance, and love just don't lend themselves to force. They are won by some virtue or other and freely given or not at all. These 'sentiments' just don't 'force' well. Hitler and Mussolini would have differed with me on that count but then, they had the enforcement squads to do that sort of thing. They would certainly have agreed as to the utility of such devices as a totalitarian control mechanism. I find it odd that you should advocate a compelled allegiance (an oxymoron that's nevertheless popular in fascist circles) and not a compelled education or at least a compelled attempt at an education. Which slippery slope are we on here?

Gee, I really HATE to mention that no 'law' is, or ever was, 'absolute' outside of a particular context (which makes is NOT absolute in a universal sense). Sorry, no such thing. We make them up - every one. Kinda in the way you make things up. You can relate, can't you? - - What the heck is 'Nature's God'? Is that another 'absolute' of ideology? When was that notion born? In which context was it born? - - "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator - My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933 - http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Adolf.Hitler.Quote.92C2 -|- Morality is the theory that every human act must be either right or wrong, and that 99% of them are wrong. - H. L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy, ch. 30, p. 617, 1949 -|- Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon 'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel. --H. L. Mencken - - Morals, when overly protested, are generally the tiny virtues of the vicious. In the United States, 'morals' have come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. So let's hear your sales pitch.