In his movie review, "America: From Freedom to Fascism," James Bowman claims that convicted tax protester Irwin Schiff and conspiracy nut Aaron Russo are working under the theory that "there should be no intermediary, no one entitled to such a position by knowledge, experience, or authority, who stands between them and the plain sense of the law." Bowman traces this idea to what he calls "Protestant fundamentalism."
In my opinion, it is simply false to trace the "no judicial intermediary" theory to the Protestant idea that the Bible doesn't need a priestly class to provide interpretations of it. That's either pro-Catholic opportunism on Bowman's part, or else anti-Protestant bigotry. Opposition to the tax laws is not a "Protestant" issue and this is the first I've ever heard such a claim. Tax rebels usually tend to follow nullification or interposition theories, which can be traced back to (ironically enough) James Madison, and also to Thomas Jefferson (not so ironically). The Civil War pretty much put an end to such ideas. For a critique of tax protestor arguments, please see the IRS site.
p>On the whole, however, I agree with Bowman's critique of conspiracy theories. The nuts on both the right and left hold to the idea of covert causation in history, and both are equally anti-American, witness the title of Russo's movie.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.