Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 05, 2000 1:40 PM Michael S. Lorrey
> retroman@turbont.net wrote:
> > > Nice to quibble over such things, but how should citizenship be
> conferred?
> > > And should noncitizens be subject to the government, if one believes in
> > > government with the consent of the governed? (If one does not, that's
> > > another story.)
> >
> > While one could say that the nation having an open immigration policy with
> > regard to outgoing traffic, anyone who doesn't leave is consenting to be
> > governed by those in charge, i.e. the old 'voting with their feet' gambit.
>
> I disagree. But, again, if you are willing to go down this road, I suppose,
> then, you support every policy of all ruling cliques in Washington and
> Laconia during your lifetime. Well, do you?
Of course not, but then again, none of their decisions have impacted me
personally on anything but a minor incremental level, which is of course, part
of the lobster cooking strategem toward tyranny. I have engaged in political
activism, just as non-citizens are permitted to do even though they cannot vote.
If you cannot vote, but to talk other people into voting the way you would like
to, would you not consider that some sort of surrogate representation?
BTW, where do you get Laconia? Concord is our state capital, and the political
leaders tend to be well distributed between Portsmouth/Durham, Manchester,
Nashua, Lebanon/Hanover, Berlin, and Keene.
>
> > This
> > policy seems to work within the 50 states, as the various state
> > governments tend
> > to get distressed if there is a high rate of taxpayers leaving their
> > particular
> > state for greener pastures (unless, of course, those leaving tend to be of
> > the
> > welfare class). Thus a non-citizen who stays here, when they could leave
> > any time, is in actuality consenting to be taxed.
>
> The problem would be, here, the need for that sort of policy on the national
> level too. It also doesn't work if, say, you're for polygamy and all fifty
> states are against it. Or if the central government decides to tax
> everyone, which it currently does.
True, though it actually does not tax everyone directly.
>
> > Taxing a non-citizen 'legally' could take many forms, for example,
> > imposing
> > expatriation tariffs on money sent by non-citizens out of the country to
> > relatives elsewhere would not be a direct tax on their income, but on
> > their 'gift' to others.
>
> But all of these are mere legal niceities. They do not speak to the spirit
> of government by consent of the governed. They merely set up euphamisms to
> ease consciences.
However your allegation that non-citizens not having representation is somehow
equal to the situation of the revolutionary period, where Americans, who were in
fact British Citizens/ Subjects, were being taxed by Acts passed in a Parliament
they did not have any representation in, is a false one, since the first group
are non-citizens, while the second group were citizens. Also your dismissal of
the distinction between direct and indirect taxation is unfounded. The Stamp Act
and the Tea Act which helped to trigger the revolt in New England were different
types of taxes. The Stamp Act was a taxation on freedom of the press, a direct
tax on an individuals recognised God given right. The Tea Act was an indirect
tax on the importation of tea. The Boston Tea Party was essentially saying,"If
we can't speak our minds freely, we don't need your tea either."
>
> > Additionally, the INS does tend to encourage resident aliens who are
> productive
> > taxpayers to become citizens. Sasha, for example, had told me he was
> debating
> > becoming a citizen for a few years, but was unsure the potential tax
> advantages
> > of remaining in his current position (since he had been exiled from the
> USSR,
> > which no longer existed, he was actually not a citizen of any country,
> which I'm
> > sure drove the INS to distraction, as they would have no place to deport
> him to
> > if he ever became a liability, and bureaucrats hate quantum people.)
>
> I was under the belief that deportation was to wherever one arrived from.
> Perhaps I'm wrong here...
Except that while Sasha was here, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and even if
he were deported, they would have to agree to accept him anyways. Since he was
never a citizen of an independent Russia, he would have been hard pressed to go
home.
>
> > > But Thomas does care. Note how before he was appointed, he was very
> much
> > > for Natural Law, but during the appointment process he turned into a
> > > pragmatist very quickly. I guess his avowed principles were only so
> much
> > > window dressing. (Or, if he's returned to them, they are only to be
> held
> > > when they are convenient.) This tells me he is not independent minded.
> He
> > > just caters to a different audience than the NAACP.
> >
> > I don't know where you get any of this. What is your rationale for this
> claim?
>
> Didn't you watch the hearings?
Yes, as I recall, Thomas did not abandon his Natural Law leanings, but was
trying to explain his logic in terms that the liberal Senators could understand.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:19 MDT