A Jacobin's Perspective on the IRS

[SteveSy]

It's very clear to me no one will win in court concerning the constitutionality of income taxes. Of course no one would have won trying to convince a German court Hitler was violating German law or that any other leader(s) who are abusing their powers and disregarding the laws are wrong either once they have obtained enough power.

See that? That's what's wrong with you. Right there. This is beyond dumb. They have pills now, Steve. Give 'em a shot.

Why is it dumb because I don't agree with the courts? The constitution wasn't written for the government it was written for the people. I fail to see why you try and make a distinction between the U.S. and any other country. They have laws and courts too. Their laws are just as valid as ours. If their courts lets people suffer and seize their citizens property then its valid. The citizens should comply no matter what and accept their decision as valid. If not, what do they want anarchy?

The only thing that makes us different than some other tyrannical government is your perception of what is acceptable which is wholly subjective. You place no limits on your reasoning.

[Lasagna]

If I hadn't already taken the other tagline, I'd have used this one:

Hey, if someone likes to pay 28% taxes to the federal government I have no problem with that. If a Jew wants to step into an oven or black person wants to ride in the back of the bus, who am I to argue. It's all 100% legal.

Someone should grab quick. Everybody's going to want one.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

I agree if the principals as they are laid are valid concerning what "law" is. I'm talking from the perspective of written law and that it doesn't change by fiat alone. If "law" is what is posited here then we must also accept that the laws in tyrannical governments are just as legitimate. I think we're saying the same thing, I'm simply trying to emphasize the irrationality of arguing that "because they said so" requires us to unconditionally accept their version of law as valid. People in those regimes would have never obtained the power they did if people did not use the flawed reasoning supplied here.

Somewhat.

What you are describing is more of Animal Farm situation. Pigs change the definition to fit there own needs -- which is a prime example of what happens in government over time. The pigs are trying to make themselves feel better by changing the meanings.

What I am saying is the words are irrelevant, once the dogs were acquired to enforce whatever Law the Pigs determined -- the words do not matter -- the written Law is irrelevant. The Law is what is enforced -- not what is written.

What I am saying is. Let's say you are wrong about what you believe the written Law says and the Founding Fathers envisioned this type of system. Does it matter? If you don't agree with the terms you do not have to agree. You will still say you don't owe nothing -- does it really matter what someone says? No. I mean slavery was legal here. I guess all black people should have been thanking their lucky stars. Law is not complete without the power to enforce.

40% of the Colonist said that Britain didn't have the power to enforce their Law on them -- they were correct.

[SteveSy]

40% of the Colonist said that Britain didn't have the power to enforce their Law on them -- they were correct.

I agree except I would add "their version of law". You go back and read and you see many of the colonists did not believe Britain was acting legally at its core. I fail to see the difference in that and how things are getting ready to happen now. I don't see a guns blazing revolution, but I do see the government collapsing and its structure dramatically changing in the not to distant future.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

If I hadn't already taken the other tagline, I'd have used this one:

Hey, if someone likes to pay 28% taxes to the federal government I have no problem with that. If a Jew wants to step into an oven or black person wants to ride in the back of the bus, who am I to argue. It's all 100% legal.

Someone should grab quick. Everybody's going to want one.

Sounds like Darkest might have just a touch of bigotry flowing through his veins.

[The Observer]

It's just the plain simple truth.

No, it isn't. Your belief that George Bush could nuke New York City and get away with it because he could claim he had legal authority to do so has no basis in reality. You have let hyperbole run away with your argument.

You either agree with the terms or you don't agree with the terms or carrying out of the terms. You can make it some complex thing but it isn't.

And what does that have to do anything? How do you explain former President Nixon under threat of being impeached for breaking the law? According to your theory, he should have been able to claim that he had legal authority to cover up for the Watergate break-in and not be the subject of prosecution. Instead something completely different happened - Nixon had to acknowledge that the current laws on the books were supreme and in force, rather than any law he could make up at his whim to cover his butt.

Hey, if someone likes to pay 28% taxes to the federal government I have no problem with that. If a Jew wants to step into an oven or black person wants to ride in the back of the bus, who am I to argue. It's all 100% legal. If the government wants to take money from you and give it to some bankers and you agree to the terms, what's the problem? If that is what you agree with -- you certainly won't see me complaining on your behave.

Like I said, I think some of you might be surprised one day. You'll probably do what your told all the way -- than one day you can go, "Yes son, I did exactly what they told me to do". If that is your thing -- I have absolutely nothing wrong with it.

And again, all you are advocating is anarchy. But when anarchy comes to pay a call at your front door, you will be singing a different tune.

[Lasagna]

SteveSy: You wanted to know why your post was dumb. Here we go:

Why is it dumb because I don't agree with the courts?

Quote that SteveSy is talking about:

It's very clear to me no one will win in court concerning the constitutionality of income taxes. Of course no one would have won trying to convince a German court Hitler was violating German law or that any other leader(s) who are abusing their powers and disregarding the laws are wrong either once they have obtained enough power.

No Steve. It was dumb when you compared American citizens being legally required to pay federal income tax to German citizens being required by Hitler to move out of their German homes, forced into Polish ghettos, being wrenched away from their spouses and children, having every item they owned seized, being brutally tossed into concentration camps where they were forced to work until they starved to death or were shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves. If it wasn't so unbelievable dumb, it would be insulting.

The constitution wasn't written for the government it was written for the people. I fail to see why you try and make a distinction between the U.S. and any other country. They have laws and courts too. Their laws are just as valid as ours. If their courts lets people suffer and seize their citizens property then its valid. The citizens should comply no matter what and accept their decision as valid. If not, what do they want anarchy?

No, Hitler's laws were not as valid as ours. The situation is not similar. For instance, there's the small issue of democracy.

You know, I'm not going to argue about this. You are really, really making me tired, man. I know you don't want to cough up your identity, but can you tell me how old you are and where you're from? If you're a teenager, that's fine; I wouldn't want the stupid nonsense I believed (and said) as a teenager thrown back in my face later, either.

The only thing that makes us different than some other tyrannical government is your perception of what is acceptable which is wholly subjective. You place no limits on your reasoning.

Well, there's also the small matter of "tyranny" separating us from tyrannical governments. My "perception" doesn't have anything to do with it.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Sounds like Darkest might have just a touch of bigotry flowing through his veins.

I don't see how any of my comments are racist in any way. It might be that you want the focus to on something other than what I have pointed out.

You can put any race or combination of races in the mix. Law is power to enforce, it's always 100% legal and justified.

The people in Eastern Europe were fine being told what to do during the Cold War in the manner in which we consider communist (mucho irony in this one) -- they agreed to the terms of the agreement -- race has nothing to do with it. You either agree with the terms or cancel the terms -- it doesn't matter if you have white, red, brown, black, or yellow skin.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

No, Hitler's laws were not as valid as ours. The situation is not similar. For instance, there's the small issue of democracy.

Hitler's laws were Hitler's laws. There were 100% legal, "valid" is not a word the Law even has to considered if they have all the power to enforce whatever they choose. Man's Law is always "valid" if it's enforced.

I think those people that were involuntarily shot in the head for not getting in the oven might have a disagreement with you about "valid" law. You don't get a more final judgment than that.

[SteveSy]

No Steve. It was dumb when you compared American citizens being legally required to pay federal income tax to German citizens being required by Hitler to move out of their German homes, forced into Polish ghettos, being wrenched away from their spouses and children, having every item they owned seized, being brutally tossed into concentration camps where they were forced to work until they starved to death or were shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves. If it wasn't so unbelievable dumb, it would be insulting.

Hitler didn't do all that to begin with and even when he did the citizens knew little to nothing about it...most all of it was considered a conspiracy theory. In fact if you read Hitler's speeches after he was "elected" all of it sounds rather nice and beneficial.

No, Hitler's laws were not as valid as ours. The situation is not similar. For instance, there's the small issue of democracy.

It was a democracy but people like you insisted nothing was amiss so they let it get to a point where Hitler's actions were hidden because he had absolute control. So allowing him to get in to the position of a dictator was not an issue, after all it was only temporary.

You know, I'm not going to argue about this. You are really, really making me tired, man. I know you don't want to cough up your identity, but can you tell me how old you are and where you're from? If you're a teenager, that's fine; I wouldn't want the stupid nonsense I believed (and said) as a teenager thrown back in my face later, either.

I'm not a teenager

The only thing that makes us different than some other tyrannical government is your perception of what is acceptable which is wholly subjective. You place no limits on your reasoning.

Well, there's also the small matter of "tyranny" separating us from tyrannical governments. My "perception" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yes it does, if the anti-federalists could see how much power our federal government has acquired they too would label it tyranny. In fact reading those papers almost makes one laugh because just about everything they were afraid of and wrote down as a possibility has come to fruition.

I consider our government tyrannical, not as much as say Hitler was in his worst but I see us on a path where the federal government has absolute control over its citizens. Your idea of tyranny is simply a matter of personal perception. I'm sure in many regimes you would label tyrannical there are many within and outside those regimes that would label that government fair and just.

[Imalawman]

Background on SteveSy for Lasagna. Divorced, middle aged, small business owner, pays his taxes and is general a nice enough guy. He's our resident nut job, with the exception of LPC, generally liked.

Steve, I do have a question. Let's say that the highest state court rules that a statute that says "carrying a firearm is illegal without a permit" means by the term "firearm" a blowgun. Thus a person is arrested and sent to prison on the charge that he was carrying a blowgun without a permit. Is the court's ruling the law of land?

Here's where we would agree. I don't think that a firearm means a blowgun. I think that is a wrong interpretation of the statute. However, I would agree that its the law until the statute clarifies the statute or the court reverses its position. Just because a court says its the law, doesn't mean that they're right, but it does mean that its the law. This is what we're trying to say. Don't like it, go change your state's constitution.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Background on SteveSy for Lasagna. Divorced, middle aged, small business owner, pays his taxes and is general a nice enough guy. He's our resident nut job, with the exception of LPC, generally liked.

Steve, I do have a question. Let's say that the highest state court rules that a statute that says "carrying a firearm is illegal without a permit" means by the term "firearm" a blowgun. Thus a person is arrested and sent to prison on the charge that he was carrying a blowgun without a permit. Is the court's ruling the law of land?

Here's where we would agree. I don't think that a firearm means a blowgun. I think that is a wrong interpretation of the statute. However, I would agree that its the law until the statute clarifies the statute or the court reverses its position. Just because a court says its the law, doesn't mean that they're right, but it does mean that its the law. This is what we're trying to say. Don't like it, go change your state's constitution.

Even if the you change the State's Constitution doesn't mean it is the Law. The Law is what is enforced, it doesn't matter what words are on a piece of freaking paper. Slavery was supposedly against this written Law you speak of but it didn't stop the U.S. government from rounding up thousands of Asians-Americans during WW2 without due process and put them in camps. The Law was 100% legal, if they had decided to slaughter them like the native Americans it would have still been 100% legal.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Sounds like Darkest might have just a touch of bigotry flowing through his veins.

I don't see how any of my comments are racist in any way. It might be that you want the focus to on something other than what I have pointed out.

You can put any race or combination of races in the mix. Law is power to enforce, it's always 100% legal and justified.

The people in Eastern Europe were fine being told what to do during the Cold War in the manner in which we consider communist (mucho irony in this one) -- they agreed to the terms of the agreement -- race has nothing to do with it. You either agree with the terms or cancel the terms -- it doesn't matter if you have white, red, brown, black, or yellow skin.

Darkest the whole "Jews / oven, and blacks riding in the back of the bus" leads me to believe you are racist. I don't really care to discuss the issue with you considering you demonstrate, at best, a tenuous grasp on reality.

[SteveSy]

Here's where we would agree. I don't think that a firearm means a blowgun. I think that is a wrong interpretation of the statute. However, I would agree that its the law until the statute clarifies the statute or the court reverses its position. Just because a court says its the law, doesn't mean that they're right, but it does mean that its the law. This is what we're trying to say. Don't like it, go change your state's constitution.

I agree it would be the accepted version of law, the law however hasn't changed. It was and still is perfectly legal to carry a blowgun. The law is just being misapplied when people are being picked up and punished. If officers would refuse to arrest people carrying blowguns, because the law obviously doesn't include them, the misapplication would cease.