Anyway.

Laird.

I got that info from J. Goldberg – I do not know where he got it from (if it wrong I apologise).

I am not going to type out my (long) reply to Rich R. all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buck

Fact-finding is the job of the trial court, not appeals courts, and especially not the Supreme Court. So you can’t blame Holmes for believing the facts in the record – although possibly the SC should have dug into the trial court’s fact-finding process, because it sounds like just talking to the girl should have led to suspicion of the doctors’ reports. What I do blame Holmes for is allowing government officials far more power than any human being should be trusted with, in this and many other cases.

In a democratic country, the state is the agent of society. As I wrote earlier, taxes in the United States are onerous – but they were enacted by legislators chosen by millions of my fellow citizens.

When a democratic government collects taxes, it is exercising a power explicitly granted to it by the will of the people, as expressed through their freely chosen representatives.

Blaming the government for doing what it is directed by society to do is like blaming a gun or a knife for a murder.

One may complain that a government is not representative; that it is arbitrary and thus tyrannical. Russia, for example. Or the EU. Or countries where an entrenched “political class” and its auxiliaries in the media effectively neuter democracy.

But that does not delegitimize all government. If one is a libertarian anarchist, come out with it. Complain that one’s fellow citizens oppress and enslave one through government. There is a hand holding the whip.

Anyway, a couple of the seminal documents in western history are largely about the citizenry objecting to taxation that is felt to be arbitrary, i.e., the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence.

At one time, as all was held of the king, he got a piece of everybody’s action. The abuse of that alleged authority, usually to fund wars, caused much of the movement toward the concept of citizens having a right to be consulted, and then the necessity of their consent, regarding any taxes.

The progressive, or collectivist, movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries proposed a state which had a need for ever increasing amounts of revenue to fund its ever increasing size and complexity. Of course, that was not how the argument for more was put to the people.

I just read an article that said the overall tax burden is around 40% when all the various types are added up, from local to federal. Since I’ve been estimating that very number for many years, I was gratified to see I wasn’t far off.

The current “big deal” is going to end up with higher taxes, and some minor, and mostly illusory, spending cuts, but it won’t really solve the underlying problems, any more than a nice bandaid heals gangrene.

We are rapidly approaching the end of the road for the progressive/collectivist/statist model of a state controlled society. The banked capital of a century or more of economic progress and investment has been depleted, and a society that has only known wealth and power for the last few generations is going to confront the ugly fact that wishing doesn’t make it so.

When you’re broke, you’re broke.

And when the preference cascade begins to snowball down the mountain, the end will come rather suddenly.

I’m afraid Mr Thompson might have to go without his grapefruit one of these days…

I could not care less what self justifications evil people write out to “justify” their wickedness.

The real reason that “Justice” Holmes did what he did was that “three generation of ……. are enough” (his words). By the way the women was not retarded – she just did not have his elite ways (what a terrible crime).

The man also made no secret of the fact that he had nothing but contempt for the whole idea of constitutional limits upon government. In short he was not a fit and proper person to be in position of trust (let alone a judge) as he did not believe in objective right and wrong (this is clear from his correspondence).

As for taxation being something to do with “a free self governing society”.

Where does one start with that?

First tax is not “free” – sorry but tax IS “taxing” (to tax is to burden).

Also you are confusing (deliberatly confusing) “society” with STATE.

That really is naughty and you should have your bottom spanked till it is rosy red.

As for “feudal”.

Better, a thousand times better, a “feudal” place like Sark (as it was only a couple of years ago) than a tyrannical “free self governing society”.

Not that such an unlimited government is a long term option anyway.

Such a system inevitably leads (by its endless govenment spending and regulations) to de facto bankruptcy and economic breakdown.

Massage the face area wash on your skin for around one minute.
This will help remove every one of the dirt, pollutants, and bacteria or
constitute residue out of your skin, and thus cleaning up it thoroughly.

I don’t know about Britain, but the U.S. income tax, and the Illlinois income tax, and the Illinois sales tax were all enacted by legislators who were elected to their offices by the explicit votes of millions of my fellow citizens.

I don’t like the result, but I consider it rather absurd of Mr. Richman to pretend that these politicians somehow imposed themselves and these tax laws on the country and state with no authorization from the people.

And yes, he does mention that the state takes people’s lives and so should have the power to impose lesser exactions. But that’s not really much of an argument; at the very least he should have expanded it to provide a more satisfactory justification. But instead he seems to think it’s a self-evident truth. And I suspect that is precisely because, in his mind, the case was “about the ‘inferiority’ vel non of the woman.” Otherwise he would not have included the famous (and wholly unnecessary) dictum “three generations of imbeciles are enough”.

Frankly, I think the opinion reads as though Holmes was annoyed with the Court for having taken the case in the first place. Certainly as a decision on the contentious issue of whether substantive due process exists at all it is wholly unsatisfactory. It’s probably Holmes’ best-known opinion, but it’s far from his best.