Guns and Butter Blog

Your excellent column underscores some disturbing attempts by United Nations’ bureaucrats to give unelected and unaccountable international organizations the power to tax the United States. Such attempts fly in the face of this nation’s bedrock principle of “no taxation without representation.” ALL government officials entrusted with taxing power MUST be subject to periodic public elections.

Our nation’s Founders understood that the power to tax is an essential attribute of governmental sovereignty. That is why the U.S. Constitution’s conferral of taxing power upon the federal government was so contentiously debated. Accordingly, the vesting of taxing power of the United States in the U.N. would be a monumental move of seismic constitutional proportions. The U.S. Constitution vests powers in international affairs in the Executive branch, with important checks placed in the other branches. But U.N. taxation would undermine our constitutional framework. Even if such a move were desirous, some sort of constitutional amendment would be required to make this happen.

But such a move is NOT desirous. We should oppose extending taxing powers to any governmental officers not accountable to frequent public elections. Only through recurring elections by the people can we hold tax-levying government officers in check. The Founders understanding remains true today.

The U.N. and other international organizations serve legitimate purposes. Serious diplomats, political leaders, international businesses and others know this. But a league of nations is not a truly representative body. The U.N. is ill-suited for full-fledged governing.

Ironically, U.N. bureaucrats seek out supranational taxing powers while the U.N. is itself mired in “Oil for Food” and other major corruption scandals. It is in desperate need of internal reforms. Trusting our taxes to that unelected body will do nothing to hold power-thirsty bureaucrats in check or clean up the U.N.

Coop, you make an excellent point about the problem of unaccountability in unelected UN officials. However, that didn't seem to be the point of Na's piece in the Seattle Times. To me the the piece was just an extrapolation of the usual 'taxman cometh' fearmongering cliche into the international arena. No surprises here from a writer at a 'nonpartisan' schemetank that promotes the 'science' of 'intelligent design' and quotes another 'nonpartisan' organization (the "Center for Individual Freedom") that strangely makes support of the death penalty, prosecution of illegal immigrants, and ANWR drilling as key parts of its agenda (what these issues have to do with individual rights is beyond me).

Na derides not only the notion of an email tax (that, at least, is a position I can understand), but unapologetically conflates taxes on carbon, arms trade, and ocean dumping with taxation on individuals' income, property, and goods and services. If it wasn't for the fact that disingenuous 'thinkers' like Na have been feeding the public this anti-tax pap for decades, the silliness of this comparison would be obvious. Tell me, Mr. Na, when was the last time you engaged as a private citizen in arms trade and ocean dumping?

The prospect of a one-world government is certainly troubling.
But proponents of global taxation are at least capable of facing up to an undeniable truth: that those of us who live on this planet are irrevocably interconnected. Mr. Na and his ilk, on the other hand, prefer to live in a mythical world where individuals live in perfect isolation, beholden to no one and owing nothing to their community. It is a despicable ethos, to be sure, but spreading this pseudo-ideology (one bereft of ideals) under cover of protecting our national sovereignty is doubly reprehensible.

Mr. Kallay:

The first two paragraphs of your comment are entirely ad hominem (for the record - for the upteenth time - I have nothing, zero, zilch, to do with the Intelligent Design movement).

Unaccountability of unelected UN officials is troublesome, yes, but it is not the main problem with global taxation.

My main problem with such an idea is that it directly challenges American sovereignty over the people and land of the US. I, along with most Americans, will not countenance the likes of France and Russia, let alone Libya or Cuba, have a say on how Americans live. There is no such thing as a global democracy. There shouldn't be one.

"Despicable" or not, I do not live in a mythical world of total individual isolation. On the contrary, it is people who push global taxation and one world government who live in a mythical world, in which a benevolent central world government looks after needs of individuals everywhere in the globe with omniscience and omnipotence.

It's a fantasy, at least as bad as communism, and in many ways far worse.

I am a realist. I find that our nation is the most dynamic, free, open and meritocratic society in the world. Outside a few zones of civilization, the world is a nasty, brutal and dangerous place where a human life is cheap.

As such, I value our system of law, our sovereignty and our freedom, not just our prosperity.

Any attempt by a supranational entity, often serving interests of those nations that are hostile to the US, to regulate how our society is shaped and run is an anathema to me and, no doubt, to most Americans.

Any attempt by such an entity to tax Americans is a dangerous precedent we should not ignore, no matter how noble it sounds or how well-intentioned it may seem, "interconnectedness" of the world notwithstanding.

I will admit that the ID remark was a cheap shot. But your by-line says "James J. Na, senior fellow in foreign policy at Discovery Institute." If you don't want to be associated with Intelligent Design, ask the Times to leave out who you work for. Otherwise, you seem to want it both ways: you want the air of authority lended by a senior fellowship at a think tank without being associated with the embarassment of the ID movement.

Yes, I am accusing you of sophistry, an accusation that is by nature a personal attack; so please don't insult your or my intelligence by crying 'ad hominem, ad hominem' and protesting your innocence with a milder restatement of your position. You could have written an article free of speciousness, perhaps one much more like the comment you made above. You chose instead to revolve the whole argument around taxes, appealing to the readers' most base instincts of protecting their pocketbooks. You chose to use as evidence a think tank of murky repute.

So you want to engage in civil discourse where issues are discussed on their merits? Fine; demonstrate your commmitment to such a discourse first. In the meantime, don't expect to be treated as anything other than a hack on the payroll of an organization bent on perpetuating deceit.

Mr. Kallay:

For someone who lectures others about "civil discourse," you are very rude.

And might I point out that Ad hominem is usually a sign of a very weak argument.

Instead of countering my facts or arguments, you resort to denigrating me and attempting to tie me to a part of the think tank, with which I have absolutely nothing to do.

Surely you are not suggesting I, or anyone else for that matter, associate myself only with organizations whose views coincide 100 percent with everything I believe in. That is an exceptionally high barrier to entry. I don't know that any human being would be able to join any organization with such standards. Maybe it exists in your "mythical" world.

I don't know enough about Intelligent Design (I am not a biologist) to say "yea" or "nay." But I find it curious that those who attack the movement, like you, often engage in personal attacks and attributions of some deep, dark motives only they can discern ("stealth creationism") rather than argue the substance of the debate.

The issue at hand is rather simple. Do you or do you not believe that the rest of the world has a say in taxing Americans? I do not think so, for the reasons I already -- rather calmly, I might add -- elaborated.

You seemingly disagree. Or do you? I cannot tell since you spend more time attacking me personally than attacking my arguments in any meaningful way.

Contrary to your assertion of engaging in "civil discourse," it seems to me, from your tone and choice of words, that you are more interested in attacking somone who is right-wing (me) than arguing the issue at hand.

You need to ask yourself a question: Is James J. Na's general ideology and professional affiliation the issue at hand or is it global taxation?

If the answer is the latter, I'd be happy to engage. However, if the answer is the former, I suggest you find another venue or at least another thread that is relevant.

Masterfully done.

You pursue the line that I am trying to tie you to the ID part of the think tank even though I admitted that this was a cheap shot and therefore signalled my willingness to back away from the guilt-by-association tack.

You protest that you have no association whatsoever with Intelligent Design, but then happily invoke the issue to suggest that I am a shrill conspiracy theorist.

You claim that ad hominem attacks are usually a sign of a very weak argument and therefore imply that I do, in fact, have a weak argument- in itself a logical fallacy.

You repeat the protestation 'ad hominem' ad nauseum, while calling me a rude hypocrite who 'lectures' about civil discourse (I recall no such lecture).

You change the subject by demanding that I choose between the issues of your general ideology and professional affiliation vs. global taxation.

The real issue remains your rhetoric. I found your most recent newspaper piece to be a misleading instance of argumentum in terrorem. This, by itself, does not constitute an ad hominem argument. The attack becomes more personal when I suggest that you are using such specious argumentation purposefully.

If we were in a debate hall such an accusation would be in bad form, and a weak argument. In a debate hall there is parity of power between the debaters, the judges are capable discerning the nuances of the arguments, and the stakes are low.

This is not a debate hall. You are a regular contributer to several newspapers (who 'happens' to work for a think tank which counts among its major backers people who want to totally integrate biblical law into our lives); I am just a high school teacher who would count himself lucky if he got 200 words in the Letters to the Editor section. The judges in the case are the same populace of which, according to one poll, 1 in 5 believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The stakes are, in this particular case, political outcomes on a global scale.

The accusation stands: I say you are purposefully appealing to the base instincts of an easily manipulated public. I consider the Discover Institute's Intelligent Design agenda to cast legitimate doubt on your own motives and methods; I found your 'playing dumb' about the issue (because you are 'not a biologist') a manipulative and rote implication that Intelligent Design is a debate in the realm of science expertise, even though it is reviled by the scientific community. I'll add that this convenient little plug is another example of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too (embracing and distancing yourself from ID at the same time).

However, we can drop ID if you like. Respond to the accusations regarding your UN taxation article on their own, or don't, at your pleasure. If I find that I have misjudged your motives, I would be happy to move beyond these accusations to a polite discussion about the issue at hand.

Oh, I see. "Idiocy" is not ad hominem at all. How silly of me. I say ad hominem "ad naseum," because that is PRECISELY what you do. Look how much time and space you spend in attacking me than actually arguing about global taxation (that is what the article and this thread are about, no?).

You will gracefully back away from ad hominem, eh? How generous of you.

For about one second, I thought about responding to your rantings line by line. But why bother? I've done that countless times with countless readers like you who are absolutely not interested in a real debate or exchange of ideas, but interested in launching your shrill rantings at me despite my polite responses and offers to discuss the substance of the issues previously.

It is interesting that you say the problem with my article is not the facts contained in it, but "rhetoric."

So I gather you are not arguing with the thesis of the article that it is a bad idea for UN to collect taxes from us? If so, I am happy, and we can end this increasingly weird discussion.

If you don't like me personally or the way I write, that's just too bad, but that's odd coming from someone who launches into personal attacks first (against someone whom you do not even know), claims to "back away" from them and then continues to launch more personal attacks.

I am done with you. The only mistakes I made were not sensing this sooner and bothering to make a comment on your own site.

Coop, nice letter to the editor in the Seattle Times. I was surprised to see it there above my own, mirroring the order of our comments on the blog post.

Mr. Na, although you are done with me I posted my own take on the UN's global taxation proposals on my blog (http://overeducation.blogspot.com/2005/10/thoughts-on-global-taxation.html). You are cordially invited to read and comment.

While I am pleased to see that The Times chose to print a slightly re-worked version of comments I placed here, they unfortunately chose to remove my paragraph about the legitimate purposes of international organizations. This might give readers the mistaken impression that I am somehow an isolationist in international affiars or would support withdrawal from the U.N.

In any event, Jonathan, you've been kinder to me in these comments than you have been to James. Yet I will plainly state that I used to work at Discovery Institute in law and policy matters pertaining to the theory of intelligent design (ID), whereas James' work was completely unrelated and separate from ID. I don't know what James even thinks about that topic--nor are his views in that regard anywhere near the top of the list of things I worry about when I get up each morning.

Incidentally, I do recall conversations with James concerning the ad hominem & guilt-by-association attacks that he has been subjected to through his work simply because he happens to have loose association with some persons who are proponents of ID. I'm inclined to think those attacks surface when a person has no better counter-argument to what is being argued.

Ad hominem attacks will occasionally get me annoyed. On some rare occasions they get me a little hacked. But usually I laugh at them.

coop:

I'd like to give people the benefit of doubt -- that they are genuinely interested in a real debate or dialogue over the substance.

But, by and large, people disappoint me almost every time.

Perhaps laughter IS the best way to go.

I sorely regret ever bringing up the topic of intelligent design, for several reasons. It was a cheap shot, it did not play well with the audience (since I was addressing you, Mr. Cooper, who it turns out have much stronger ties to ID than does Mr. Na), and it lost me the moral high ground to which I was trying to lay claim. An error, through and through.

I also regret the vehemence of the opening salvo. Aside from the ID comment, I don't think anything I said was inaccurate or inappropriate. But I will admit that deep down I was trying to deny Mr. Na's right or authority to write op-ed pieces in the paper- and trying to silence someone is not a wise move. I was genuinely outraged at the way Na was talking down to the readers, and appealing to the worst in them rather than the best. This is a common source of angst for liberals like me, who feel the right is winning the battle for 'hearts and minds' based on 'values' that are anything but. Maybe there was some jealousy mixed in there as well- how does someone who writes things like this get to write for a living (assuming that is what Mr. Na does), while I slave away in a field that produces citizens who aren't capable of seeing through the argument? Mea culpa.

I still believe that Na's piece was glib and not particularly honest; I maintain that I have a right to challenge him on these grounds without having to say a word about the topic itself. But I HAVE laid out my initial thoughts on the topic, and am respectfully awaiting an explanation on how I misread the Seattle Times piece (or a clarification on how UN taxes really will target our individual pocketbooks) and perhaps a response to my take on the issue.

I still believe that Na's piece was glib and not particularly honest

Jonathan, how honest was it for you to write that post asking for your readers to tell you if you were really unfair or not, argue with their responses, and then- dissaparate it without comment?

headmistress, zookeeper:

At first, I did not understand what you meant, but now I see. Kallay received responses he did not like, so he simply deleted them from his blog.

It's his site. Private property rights and all that. But I note that sites that delete comments like that do not get much traffic.

As for countering his ad hominem attacks with something similar (even when it is deserved because of the behavior noted above), I don't really believe in that.

His underhanded way of running his blog does not prove or disprove his notion that I was "glib" and "dishonest."

Frankly, I still do not understand his objection to my piece. The issue is rather clear to me. I oppose "global governance" and one-world government. The authority to tax is a sure sign of sovereignty. The UN is taking steps to acquire taxation authority, including that over the United States.

I think that is a dangerous precedent. I do not think there is anything "glib" or "dishonest" about that.

Point taken, but I was not really intending what I said to be a proof or disproof as to whether or not you are glib and/or dishonest. My point is to note that the colorblind are not perhaps the best judges of color. Jonathan has commented to our family blog more than a few times in the past. His link is how I found *your* blog. I like Jonathan, actually, and I have high hopes for him, even though we agree on almost nothing.

I cannot speak for Jonathan as to why he objects to your notions. I agree with you about the problems of UN taxation. However, I have relatives who do not, and they have argued that the UN *has* sovereignty and must continue to have it because we are a global community and the UN is the world's law enforcement body.

So, do your releatives think that Libya and Cuba, let alone France and Germany, should have a say in how the US should be run?

Actually, I deleted the post as an act of good will. Since I invited Mr. Na to comment on my take on UN taxation, and the post title "James J. Na is NOT an Idiot" did not create, shall we say, an entirely welcoming environmen for that, I thought the post was better off being deleted. At the time, a commentor named Tim wrote that my ongoing criticism of Na in lieu of actually discussing the issue "makes it far less meaningful, relevant, or worth reading." My response was "Fair enough," after which I posted my opinion, apologized for my vitriol on this blog, invited Mr. Na to comment, and deleted the post about him. I have made note of this deletion on my blog.

When we take any foreign policy action with respect to Libya or Cuba, doesn't that imply that those countries do, in fact, have some say as to 'how the US is run?' Don't Cuban politics have a noticeable effect on American politics in Florida, obviously an important state in the national political arena? You've got a lot of work to do connecting the UN taxation concept to an appreciable change in those countries' influence over us.

James, yes, my relatives do think those other countries should have a say in how the US is run. Oddly enough, they don't think we should have much say in how other countries operate.

headmistress, zookeeper:

I have problem enough with ELECTED officials of other "democracies" (e.g. France, Germany, etc.) having a say on how we Americans live in our own country.

To give UNELECTED dictatorships like Cuba and Libya get a say through the UN is more than just baffling. I cannot believe that Americans like your relatives actually think that's the right thing to do.

That is one of my primary problem with the UN -- because it relies on the Westphalian construct of the sovereign prince (or government), such repressive regimes are on the same moral plane as democracies as far as the UN proceedings are concerned.

I cannot believe that Americans like your relatives actually think that's the right thing to do.

My relatives are rather baffling people. They like Cuba. They don't like America so much. Yet they choose to live and work here (they have traveled and lived elsewhere and in fact, one of them is not a citizen).

Well, if they like Cuba so much, I suppose the conversation-ender can always be "Hey, if you like Cuba so much, why don't you live there?"

I guess this is a fine example of a "mental disconnect" (another example: Californians who flee the high taxes, bad schools and crime and then who vote for the same type of politicians -- read Democrats -- in their new states). I always ask "Why did you leave?"