Continuing The Thought...

Okay.

I think it's well established that the rights guaranteed under the First and the Second Amendments are equally valid and that abridging one of them is not more or less wrong than abridging the other.

Let's skip over the Third Amendment for now, and let's look at the Fourth Amendment.  And no, I will not talk about airport security or my feelings about it here.

The Fourth Amendment reads:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's the whole amendment.

We typically refer to this amendment when speaking of property rights or privacy rights.  It is a key player in any discussion of governments' exercise of their power of eminent domain.  But I want to look at this amendment in light of the currently-popular movement to "tax the rich", (whoever they are!). 

If Nature and Nature's God gave Man certain unalienable rights including the right to peaceably enjoy the fruits of one's labor, it follows that taking away the fruits of one's labor so that he or she may not enjoy them is immoral and a violation of Natural Law.  We call it stealing.

But there remains the fact that government is expensive.  On a federal or national level we need a strong defense against foreign invasion or influence.  We need a court system that prevents injustice between the states.  We need laws, infrastructure and enforcement that are designed to promote the general well being of all Americans.  On state and local levels we need other services such as water, sewer, fire protection and police departments.  And because governments don't make money, we have a necessary and moral need for taxation.

Taxation in order to support the legitimate functions of government as outlined in federal and state constitutions and in city charters is fine.  Everyone benefits equally from those functions.  And as such, everyone should be equally invested in support of them.  Armies don't shoot more bullets in defense of a rich man's border than in defense of a poor one's.  Courts don't use more justices or jury members deliberating over a rich man's case than a poor one's.  The interstate isn't better maintained for a rich man's car than for a poor one's.  And a poor person does not avail himself of the functions of government any less than does a rich person.

And so, we can be equally invested in two ways:  We can all pay the same amount, or we can all pay the same rate. 

If a city of 1,000 people has a government that costs $1,000,000 to run each year, then all residents could be fairly asked to pay $1,000 each for those services.  The family of 5 would pay $5,000, and the family of 3 would pay $3,000.  It's equal and it's fair.

That same city could look at it's residential properties and realize that there were 500 homes in town.  Each home could then be assessed $2,000 per year in a property tax.  It's equal and it's fair.

The city could realize that the average annual earnings of its residents was $100,000 and place an income tax of 1% on each earner.  The person who earns $1,000,000 per year would pay $10,000 in tax, while the person who earns $10,000 per year would pay only $100.  It's equal and it's fair.

Each of these taxation schemes can be called both fair and equal.  And more importantly, in the terms of the Fourth Amendment, they can be called "reasonable."

But for a long time in history there has been a sentiment that says the "rich" somehow "owe" something to "society" that the "poor" and the "middle class" don't.  Isn't that strange? 

I'm not talking about moral obligations of goodness.  I'm telling you that there are people who actually believe that some people should bear a disproportionate share of the burden of supporting government functions than others.  And those same people who believe that also believe that the same some people should have their property taken away so that government can support the same others' lifestyle.

There are people who believe that government is right to seize the property of an American citizen and without cause or justification give that property to another person. 

That's not only a violation of that person's Natural rights and a violation of the protection of those rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but it is immoral.  It is as immoral as prohibiting a person from expressing his or her political views, joining the church of his or her choice, or telling them what they can or cannot do with their body.

Fair and equal taxation to support the lawful function of government is just.  Punitive, falsely-named "progressive" taxation with the end in mind of redistributing personal property is not.  It is unjust.  It is immoral. 

It is UNREASONABLE.  And those who support abridging the sacred right to privacy and property do not understand (or perhaps they do) that when we surrender one Natural right, we will soon surrender them all.