People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice

“This is not a case of need, this is a case of greed.”

December 16, 2011 By: John Kindley Category: Uncategorized

Indeed it is. The State doesn’t need the money it extorts from the people whose labor has earned it, and by disbarring and sending to prison a 69-year-old criminal defense lawyer (and forcing him on pain of harsher punishment to admit that he was “wrong”) and thereby terrorizing other producers tempted to follow his example, it satisfies the greed of that class which has discovered that it is easier to live by the sword of the State than by labor.

Here’s Henry George on taxation:

We propose to abolish all taxes save one single tax levied on the value of land, irrespective of the value of the improvements in or on it.

. . .

That the value of the land alone would suffice to provide all needed public revenues—municipal, county, State, and national—there is no doubt.

. . .

It would get rid of taxes which necessarily promote fraud, perjury, bribery, and corruption, which lead men into temptation, and which tax what the nation can least afford to spare—honesty and conscience. Since land lies out-of-doors and cannot be removed, and its value is the most readily ascertained of all values, the tax to which we would resort can be collected with the minimum of cost and the least strain on public morals.

. . .

When we tax houses, crops, money, furniture, capital or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals what rightfully belongs to them. We violate the right of property, and in the name of the State commit robbery. But when we tax ground values, we take from individuals what does not belong to them, but belongs to the community, and which cannot be left to individuals without the robbery of other individuals.

And here, via Roderick Long, is an excerpt from an article by an economist in the 7th edition (1830-42) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica explaining why no people “not altogether enslaved” would tolerate an income tax:

Taxation of Income Impracticable

The difficulties in the way of assessing income are of two sorts: 1st, The difficulty of ascertaining the amount of the annual revenue of different individuals; and, 2nd, Supposing that amount to be known, the difficulty of laying an equal tax on income derived from different sources.

It would be useless to dwell at any considerable length on the first of these heads. Incomes arising from the rent of land and houses, mortgages, funded property, and such like sources, may be learned with tolerable precision; but it neither has been, and, we are bold to say, never will be, possible to determine the incomes of farmers, manufacturers, dealers of all sorts, and professional men, with anything like even the rudest approximation to accuracy. It is in vain to attempt to overcome this insuperable difficulty by instituting an odious inquiry into the affairs of individuals. It is not, indeed, very likely that any people, not altogether enslaved, would tolerate, in ordinary circumstances, such inquisitorial proceedings; but whether they did or did not, the result would be the same. The investigations would be worthless; and the commissioners of an income-tax would in the end have nothing to trust to but the declarations of the parties. Hence it is that the tax would fall with its full weight upon men of integrity, while the millionaire of “easy virtue” would well nigh escape it altogether. It would, in fact, be a tax on honesty, and a bounty on perjury and fraud; and, if carried to any considerable height – to such a height as to render it a prominent source of income – it would undoubtedly generate the most barefaced prostitution of principle, and would do much to obliterate that nice sense of honor which is the only sure foundation of national probity and virtue.

1 Comments to ““This is not a case of need, this is a case of greed.””

  1. I’m tempted to say that there must be more to the story about the Baltimore lawyer, but then people often assume such things only to find that it’s not true. On the face of it, why they spent the time and resources to nail a 69 year old lawyer hiding a relatively small amount of cash is a mystery. They do that to him, but Corzine et al get a pass for many billions. Not to mention what state prosecutors do (18.U.S.C. 241 and 242) but which the feds never prosecute or even investigate.

    Its much easier to get a conviction of a criminal defense lawyer, of course. But if that’s the criterion – it’s easier, so you might as well go for it – this could mean a lot of trouble for CDL’s generally.


Leave a Reply


  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine