Hi Oboe,
Yes, I believe that the use of force or the threat of force to make someone hand over their own legally obtained private property against their will is almost always a variety of theft.
You see, I don't see much of a difference between being forced to hand over my family farm against my will in order to build a Walmart or a new DHSS branch or a block of council flats. The intentions (at least the stated intentions) in all of them are good, and intended to serve the greater interest, but I believe all of them violate a natural right granted to all people by their Creator.
Unfortunately, I will concede that a certain amount of wiggle room on this subject (eminent domain) is in fact built into the original text of the constitution. For instance, the 5th ammendment of the US constition states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (italics mine) So the ability of the government to seize private property against your will and reimburse you for it, has been there from the beginning and that this power was further extended by the Income Tax ammendment (16) of 1913.
The strict constructionists argued in part that this interpretation of "the public use clause" of the constitution effectively twists it out of shape via an excessively broad interpretation. Yet more "penumbras" have been discovered. Certainly the framers would not have allowed seizures to increase the tax base, etc. Road building, defense, etc. perhaps, but Condos and Strip Malls? Not a chance. The "I'll rule according to what is best for the Common Good" trend has got to stop or we will rapidly become entirely subject to the whims of the judicial oligarchy.
In any event, Chairboy is right, I do indeed believe that the process of ammending the constitution should be the most difficult of all legal processes (and in the US, it is) in order to preserve continuity rather than having us become entirely subject to the demogoguery of the age or political fads of dubious value.
I believe however, that the ammendments we enact should be in keeping with natural laws (i.e. those laws that men are granted by their creator) rather than being against them. I would, for instance, oppose an ammendment allowing for murder not because it doesn't "serve the common good" but because I agree with the signers of the Declaration when they affirmed the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Clearly, the US government is not acting here to secure these God given rights.
- SEAGOON
PS - there were indeed prior attempts in US history to raise revenue via income taxes, but these were always of dubious constitutionality. Lincoln's attempt here is in the same category as his suspension of habeas corpus. Great man that he was, he did many things of at least questionable constitutionality in his quest to preserve the union.
