Pete Hendrickson
[Continued from page 2]
SUNNI: I know of many tax resisters who think that the whole idea of being in touch with the IRS -- asking them to show us the law requiring us to pay income taxes -- is a bad idea. Their strategy is to just drop out -- stop filing, or never start filing -- and to count on the IRS' ineptitude to keep them from being discovered. And I'll admit that approach has a lot of appeal to me, along the same lines as not poking a stick into a hornet's nest. What are your reasons for not choosing and advocating that strategy?
PETE: First of all, it hardly needs to be said that an approach of that sort is inherently unreliable. It is also perpetually unresolved-- a Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head. That's no way for anyone to live. More significantly, it's no way for an American to behave. I don't mean to sound harsh, but crouching in the shadows hoping to be overlooked by a lawless, stalking government is to abandon the field to corruption. Furthermore, even on its own terms that approach reflects a sort of moral cognitive dissonance. It says, "I know that I'm not properly or lawfully subject to this protocol, but I'm not willing to declare that fact on paper," which is all that filing an accurate and truthful 1040 actually amounts to for most Americans. There is a perverse expression of this dissonance which is worth mentioning. Many of those who most vocally declare themselves not properly subject to the tax have embraced the notion that by filing a 1040 one who otherwise would not have been becomes legally subject to the income tax. This particular example of the distracting flights of fancy we discussed earlier has origins too involved to detail here, but the irony is that under its influence, these vigorous opponents of the misapplication of the tax staunchly refuse to do the one thing that would legally establish that they are not subject to the tax. If I had more respect for the IRS's imagination (and were more conspiratorial-minded than I am), I would have to entertain the suspicion that this particular misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of a 1040 was deliberately cultivated by the agency. Where it takes hold, it leads the very people the government most hopes to find vulnerable to legal sanction to adamantly refuse the one means provided by law for them to make themselves invulnerable.
SUNNI: Very interesting, Pete ... So you're saying that there are dangers to that approach that some people fail to see, or unwisely minimize?
PETE: I suspect that everyone recognizes the dangers, and it's pretty difficult to minimize them at this time of year, when the IRS is engaged in its annual intimidation exercises. What dropouts fail to understand is that the law really does demand a return once evidence of the receipt of income has been submitted to the government, and, more importantly, that while such a return is the proper means to endorse accurate evidence of the receipt of income, a 1040 is also the proper means for rebutting inaccurate evidence. In my experience, the vast majority of such evidence is wildly inaccurate, and the government agrees, as is proven by the refunds enjoyed by readers of Cracking the Code. These Americans, having learned what actually qualifies as "income" under the law and what doesn't, use their annual tax filing to correct erroneous assertions about taxable-activity-related status of their receipts. Dropouts let those assertions stand uncorrected, and thus allow the government to make perfectly legitimate presumptions that associated taxes are owed, with all the attendant consequences.
SUNNI: Hmmm. I'll have to think on that some. What do you think of the Fair Tax idea? The idea sounds appealing, but the details -- the monthly rebate scheme, for starters -- show that it would still require a lot of paperwork, and would give the state a lot more specific information about what people do in their daily lives. Which is the better devil to dance with, do you think?
PETE: The fair tax is well meant, maybe, but it is a terrible idea for many reasons. I'm not going to list them here -- it would take too long. The subject is quite important, though, so if you'll permit me, I'd like to direct those interested to the essay Regarding Tax 'Reform', where I have recorded some of my thoughts. Suffice it to say that such a 'reform' is completely unnecessary. The income tax, properly understood and lawfully applied, is perfectly benign and Constitutional. All that is needed is to require our servant government to follow the law as written. Furthermore, the tax legally applies to so small a portion of the population that any alternative would amount to a dramatic expansion of the government's taxing authority. Finally, we already have alternative tax structures fully in place. The Constitution does provide for both apportioned direct taxes and revenue tariffs. Congress is fully capable of deploying either at any time, and either are fully capable of replacing the entire revenue stream currently associated with the income tax.
SUNNI: Reading through your essays, one can reasonably form the idea that you have some faith remaining in the Constitution. Is that accurate? If so, how do you retain that faith when all branches of the federal government have trampled the Bill of Rights, and much of mainstream America seems not to have even noticed?
PETE: I have a great deal of faith in the durability of the Constitution. In fact, though it may sound rather alien, I rarely see federal legislation which explicitly exceeds the Constitutional limitations imposed on the government. Indeed, the most startling thing I learned in researching the federal revenue law was that the income tax is fully Constitutional. I had wasted a lot of ink during the preceding years arguing that the tax was self-evidently not Constitutional. But after getting into the dark innards of the law, I found that the statutes contain all the necessary qualifying provisions and enumerated limitations on their objects and applications to properly confine the tax to an indirect excise solely on the enjoyment of federally-connected privilege.
My experience researching other major bodies of legislation, and almost all Supreme Court rulings, has been the same. With very few exceptions -- which themselves incorporate comforting ambiguity -- federal enactments, as written, do not attempt to exceed the government's proper limits. However, I do see a great deal of misunderstanding about how the law works, and consequent misunderstanding of the meaning of those enactments. Those who expect to benefit are perfectly willing to take advantage of such misunderstandings to project government authority where it really has no force by sheer bluster and brass, since no one else knows to make a fuss. Consequently, we see a lot of state behavior that appears to be in violation of the Constitution, but which actually has no more substance than my declaring myself Emperor of the Universe after giving my house the official title of "The Universe". An awful lot of legislation is passed these days which has no application outside of the governmental structure itself. However, because the official title of that structure is "the United States", and because few Americans are conscious these days of the difference between that title and the artificial entity to which it refers and what is described by the phrase "the united States" the reach and application of that legislation is taken to be far greater than it actually is. Just as there is nothing to stop me from declaring myself Emperor and inviting the neighbors to remove their hats when I pass by, there is nothing to stop the government from enacting a rule affecting all government workers, for instance, and inviting everyone else to imagine that it applies to them as well -- and that's all that is typically happening when we see what appears to be a defiance of the Constitution. It's not a very admirable, high-integrity practice, but it's also not the rank and rogue corruption that it otherwise would be.
SUNNI: Lest anyone get the idea that you're a one-trick pony, I should mention that you've also written about education, money, and Constitutional issues, including an excellent piece on the Fourth Amendment. Do you dabble in these areas as your interest and time allows, or do you have a more structured approach?
PETE: It's often a matter of target of opportunity, relating to some current event, or the mainstream perspective on some current event. In fact, it's been my experience that unless I'm already in the middle of another subject, listening to the radio for a half-hour or so will send me to my keyboard. However, I am engaged in a systematic study of our unique American legal structure, which is the overall focus of a book I'm working on now. That study has inspired most of my non-tax-related writing over the past year.
SUNNI: One of the things I like best about your work is that you obviously take it seriously, but your style isn't overly academic, or deadly-dull serious. You have a good sense of humor and it shows in a lot of your essays. How do you retain your positive outlook?
PETE: Sometimes just by sheer determination... Still, despite the fairly steady erosion of liberty in America over my lifetime, I see heartening indicators that all is not lost. Homeschooling is growing explosively, raising up a future cadre of well-educated, free-thinking Americans. The internet, and other forms and applications of communications technology are breaking off and pushing aside the information gatekeepers that used to carefully control what Americans were allowed to know -- both about events and about the real views of their neighbors. The old "Gee, Mrs. Smith, you're the only one who's ever complained about that..." BS is rapidly going the way of the dodo, and communities of interest which do not serve the purposes of the status quo are coalescing. As noted earlier, the law remains uncorrupted. So, there is a not unreasonable measure of hope, even though optimism would be going too far.
SUNNI: What freedom-oriented organizations and people inspire you? What do you do for fun?
PETE: I'm a fan of pretty nearly all of the libertarian-oriented think-tanks and public policy groups, such as the Mackinac Center, CEI [The Competitive Enterprise Institute], The National Right To Work Foundation, etc. I'm particularly fond of those that focus on legal activism, like the Institute for Justice, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Center for Individual Rights, because these are the folks whose fingers are in the dike. I'm also very appreciative of the work of a number of individual activists and thinkers, such as Charles Murray, Harry Browne, Walter Olson, P. J. O'Rourke, and far too many others to list.
As for fun, I enjoy an evening of bridge when I can manage one, and I'm a movie buff as well. However, most of my recreation time is spent watching my son and daughter play soccer, a game I have come to enjoy a great deal, and getting together with friends to solve the world's problems over dinner and drinks.
SUNNI: Since you mentioned solving problems ... do you think George Bush is a harbinger of things to come? Or are enough mainstream Americans waking up to the awful things he's ushered in to make it likely that the next president can't be as bad for freedom as he's been?
PETE: I think if the Libertarian Party (or other third parties), have the energy and the vision that are all this opportunity asks for, this presidency could be the beginning of the rapid end of the Democrat-Republican axis. Bush is demonstrating beyond hope of denial that the Republican party has no commitment whatsoever to the principles that motivated the support of at least half of its traditional base over the years, immediately after the Clinton administration's convincing demonstration that the Democrats have no principles whatsoever. Americans are not nearly as venal as their vested political class. A little practical political discipline, such as focusing all the resources of each state party organization on electing a single candidate to national office, could start the avalanche that changes the American political scene. A libertarian congressional caucus bigger than just Ron Paul would command media attention, and a few years of that would be all that it would take.
SUNNI: So you seem fairly optimistic, despite what you just said, regarding our prospects for liberty in this country over the next five to ten years ...
PETE: The folding of the income tax scheme, along with the progress of the other positive indicators I mentioned earlier, will represent upticks. The reaction of the state and its beneficiaries to those same processes will represent downticks. So, it will be a mixed bag, I think, with a disturbing short-term demeanor but a the potential for a more pleasing aspect over the longer haul.
SUNNI: Since this year's "criminal rites of spring", as you so aptly put it, are just about over, do you have any general advice to offer freedom-minded individuals to help them shrug off the chains of taxation before the rites come around again next year?
PETE: Sure. Read Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America, and learn what the law actually says. That's the only thing that has to be recommended or encouraged. After that, everything else that needs to be done is self-evident and simple.
SUNNI: Pete, thanks so much for your time today. I've really enjoyed talking with you, and hope our paths can cross in person some day soon.
