I have noticed a huge connection between MLM members and tax protesting.
+ Debt elimination scams
+ Medical quackery
I saw a CD being sold that contained ebooks, audio and video on all four of those topics. Nice to see the market validating anecdotal evidence.
Slightly off topic, but does anyone have an electronic copy of Creature from Jekyll Island? I seem to have lost the second-hand copy I had, and I've got some mythbustin' to do. It used to be available in an ASCII text file back in the day, but all my Google-fu comes up blank. (PM me)
It's on the shelves at a library in the area, but that would require me spending a few bucks of gas and potentially depriving a local Ron Paul supporter of their fiscal pornography for a couple of weeks.
I’ll help them get more power at the Fed. - Ron Paul
Ron Paul and Robert Higgs are two modern leaders in the tax protestor community. They give all the ammunition the t.p.'s need to fight the U.S. system. How realistic would their utopian libertarian system be? Check out Higgs' "The Political Economy of Fear" article. Sounds good, reasoning seems to be sensible. When the bright day comes when the U.S. government is overthrown by "the people", what a happy day it will be, posits Higgs.
Ron Paul's colleagues don't believe in his utopian vision, although some admire his sensible defense of civil liberties and opposition to unnecessary wars. But the anarcho-capitalism and social Darwinist creed was not practical in 1933 and even less so today. The tax protestors are thrilled by the pain of the system people. Their biggest fear is for the troops to come back from overseas commitments, filling civil service jobs, and for the mood of the people to turn against the tax protestors. Now a lot of people have taken a cynical view of the money system, they trade in cash where they can, file inaccurate tax forms, and the lax enforcement has vindicated the cynical. The mood of the people can change quickly, and if we bring the troops home, there will be united focus on making the whole system work. Fraud is still fraud if the government never finds out, the morals of tax protestors and their families are corrupted. I would rather face a human judge than the judge of all mankind.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
Gosh, I'm just so excited at the extended dialogue. Tonight it's vodka and diet tonic with lime. I'm on a diet. No, really, I'm starting tomorrow.
Should I use the term Tax Defier or Denier instead of Tax Protester? Who came up with this? It really does make sense as I like to protest as much as the next unemployed guy who hangs out downtown in black clothing just hoping that maybe he'll get a shot on the news at 6.
I've been around the TD mindset for a few years now, and I feel qualified to make certain judgments about TDs. First, I've seen the "narcissist" word bandied about quite a bit and I think it fits very well. I have noticed a prevalent sociopathic tendency as well where these people (pretty much exclusively dudes) don't really give a rat's ass about their family or how their actions effect people they care about. I don't see this as particularly revolutionary.
So, let's take things to the next level....
We (I'm not meaning to be too arrogant as I'm no genius and the subject I'm about to broach may piss off or alienate some of you) argue and attempt to reason with people who tend to discard reason as if they hold a patent on it, or are privy to facts that only the select few can understand. I'm not trained in law, but can read a sentence and generally divine the meaning intended. I can comprehend the difference between the words "includes" and "means". Thank you...thank you very much. Many TDs write well and convey thoughts via printed media effectively, so it implies that it's not a grammatical deficiency that causes these gross misunderstandings. My perception (definitely not truth, by any means (gosh, as I read this I'm really a wuss)) is that these people do not want to live by the same rules, which thereby implies that they want to do things that those who live in a civilized society would not accept. Inevitably these folks lean toward creating their own sovereign society, based on common law principles, or whatever principles will permit them doing whatever they want without consideration of anyone else.
I hear a lot about greed and arrogance driving the TD, but I think the depravity of the TDs is underestimated. Is every TD a pervert? Obviously not, but I'd be willing to wager that the local NAMBLA chapter has a fair amount of TDs as members.
unasI'minous wrote:We (I'm not meaning to be too arrogant as I'm no genius and the subject I'm about to broach may piss off or alienate some of you) argue and attempt to reason with people who tend to discard reason as if they hold a patent on it, or are privy to facts that only the select few can understand. I'm not trained in law, but can read a sentence and generally divine the meaning intended. I can comprehend the difference between the words "includes" and "means". Thank you...thank you very much. Many TDs write well and convey thoughts via printed media effectively, so it implies that it's not a grammatical deficiency that causes these gross misunderstandings. My perception (definitely not truth, by any means (gosh, as I read this I'm really a wuss)) is that these people do not want to live by the same rules, which thereby implies that they want to do things that those who live in a civilized society would not accept. Inevitably these folks lean toward creating their own sovereign society, based on common law principles, or whatever principles will permit them doing whatever they want without consideration of anyone else.
It is my opinion that you have touched upon a point that describes many gurus and their most ardent followers. Many of them have a decent grasp on grammar and the English language, however, they somehow believe that words have different meanings than normal usage when used in the IRC. I believe this is caused by the person reaching a conclusion that taxes are somehow illegal in some manner and then 'researching' the tax code and court cases to support that conclusion. The problem with their 'research' is that they disregard any evidence that does not support their forgone conclusion. In order to support their conclusion, they have to change the meanings of words and take quotes out of context. To the untrained eye, and to a person who isn't listening to their own common sense, the argument may appear plausible. It is when the common sense kicks in or a careful examination of the argument happens, that the whole thing falls apart.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
I hear a lot about greed and arrogance driving the TD, but I think the depravity of the TDs is underestimated. Is every TD a pervert? Obviously not, but I'd be willing to wager that the local NAMBLA chapter has a fair amount of TDs as members.
lol...I would be willing to bet most NAMBLA members are hard core liberals. Most TP's are very faith based and stick close to their families and friends. I'm sure there are exceptions as there are with all groups but in general that's how most are. It's not a matter of not wanting rules. It's a matter of having rules placed on them that directly affect the ability to remain free. The country doesn't have to directly seize people's earnings to operate. You can whine and cry about how much other people must have the working person's earnings but the truth of the matter it doesn't have to happen. It's not greed to not want to support Social Security, Medicare or the numerous other programs that make income taxes desirable. It's no more my responsibility to pay for that than it is my responsibility to provide care for people in Zimbabwe. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people but it also should be forced on anyone to help other people financially. You can't claim the moral high ground or even that you're being considerate when you have to threaten people to help at the threat of punishing them if they don't.
The government could make a law tomorrow allowing the government to arbitrarily search through houses so that they can make sure drugs are under control and crime in general would be severely reduced. There is no doubt such a law would reduce crime. However, is it necessary, is it right and most importantly would it be contrary to basic liberty. Sure people could live as they like as long as the don't violate the law, they could go where they like as long as they aren't doing any thing wrong, but are they really free? Are we free when we are forced to have the government's hand directly in our pocket and can take out however much it wants whenever it wants...I think not and that's why TP's have issue.
Again, it's not a matter of greed, following rules or anything like that. The law is so repugnant to freedom and liberty that its unfathomable to a lot of people that it could be constitutional in the first place. Even if it was no one has the right to place that kind of control on another in a land that was formed out of the demand for freedom and liberties.
SteveSy wrote:Most TP's are very faith based and stick close to their families and friends.
Most TPs are divorced when their wives took the kids and ran away ... fast. It's why so many TPs have extreme anger towards the divorce courts and child services bureaucrats.
SteveSy wrote:Most TP's are very faith based and stick close to their families and friends.
Most TPs are divorced when their wives took the kids and ran away ... fast. It's why so many TPs have extreme anger towards the divorce courts and child services bureaucrats.
Right....give me a break
I will agree some are divorced and have an anger towards the system concerning child support. I happen to be one of them, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on income taxes. The child services thing is just another symptom of depriving individuals freedom. The system is highly unfair towards non-custodial parents, it ignores simple common sense like making sure the children are actually receiving benefit of the money forcibly taken and is it in line with what the custodial parent is contributing. People having children should be responsible for taking care of them, both parents. The State has failed miserably in that respect in its attempt to insure that takes place. The welfare of the children is very last on the list, how much money can be siphoned from the non-custodial parent is first and foremost. Anyway...let's not get off topic.
SteveSy wrote: Are we free when we are forced to have the government's hand directly in our pocket and can take out however much it wants whenever it wants...I think not and that's why TP's have issue.
Fair enough.. However making ridicilous legal arguements have done nothing to make them more free, and promoting those arguements haven't helped to make others more free, quite the opposite.
SteveSy wrote:Again, it's not a matter of greed, following rules or anything like that. The law is so repugnant to freedom and liberty that its unfathomable to a lot of people that it could be constitutional in the first place. Even if it was no one has the right to place that kind of control on another in a land that was formed out of the demand for freedom and liberties.
There is no provision in the constitution that I am aware of that says a law cannot be repugnant to freedom and liberty, slavery was once constitutional and legal.
Some may say laws prohibiting gay marriage is repugnant to freedom and liberty, but those laws are okay with you.. So even according to your standards it is okay to pass laws that are repugnant to freedom and liberty..
RyanMcC wrote:Some may say laws prohibiting gay marriage is repugnant to freedom and liberty, but those laws are okay with you.. So even according to your standards it is okay to pass laws that are repugnant to freedom and liberty..
I never said we should have a law prohibiting gay marriage but at the same time I don't see why we need to have laws legalizing it either. I certainly don't see why a State should be forced to recognize it nor any entity for that matter. There is a huge difference between prohibiting something, not legalizing it or enforcing it, even if you don't see the difference.
There is no provision in the constitution that I am aware of that says a law cannot be repugnant to freedom and liberty, slavery was once constitutional and legal.
While there may not be a clause that directly states it all of the bill of rights are there just for that purpose. In fact the bill of rights was thought to not even be needed considering those rights where thought to be inherent to any free society and expressing them in the constitution could mean that they were given and limited to those rights instead of being part of inherent, unalienable, and inviolable rights.
As far as slavery is concerned the constitution did not legalize it. It was reasoned that negros were 3/5th of a man therefore did not have the rights everyone else had. As we all agree that's absurd and many of the founders knew slavery was repugnant to what was being devised. That's why importing slaves became illegal shortly after the adoption of the constitution. Slavery was so ingrained in to the society at that time a total ban was impossible even though most knew it was inconsistent with the constitution and the very foundation upon which the country was formed.
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
While there may not be a clause that directly states it all of the bill of rights
Sorry Stevie, according to the theories espoused by your TP heroes, the Bill of Rights was never ratified.
You're taking a slim few and pronouncing it as the mainstay argument for all. A few of you believe in communism, should I assume all of you believe that? Most TP's believe the government needs taxes, laws, anarchy is a bad thing and that when you sign your loan agreement you owe the bank the money. Just because loonies are extra ordinarily vocal doesn't mean everyone that holds a few similar beliefs are just like them in every way. You happen to focus on the most vocal of people holding the belief that income taxes are unconstitutional.
btw, I don't have any TP heroes. Most of them are idiots trying to make money off of people and will saying anything to make that happen or they have fallen so far down the rabbit hole they are in the same realm as the Heaven's Gate cult.
Last edited by SteveSy on Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A slim few TPs believe in Bill Benson's argument that the 16th Amendment was never ratified? Yikes! You *are* out of touch with your movement.
The 16th Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights..
I've never heard the "Bill of Rights was never ratified" arguement before though.
That's because there is no Bill of Rights argument. In fact, TPs dearly love the BoRs (especially #2).
If you apply the same reasoning, however, that Benson used for the 16th Amendment (typos, inconsistent capitalization, spelling discrepancies), to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, those amendments didn't pass the test either.
Poor TPs just don't get that if the 16th Amendment was never ratified, neither were any of the first 15 amendments...
SteveSy wrote:Are we free when we are forced to have the government's hand directly in our pocket and can take out however much it wants whenever it wants...I think not and that's why TP's have issue.
The government can not take out however much it wants whenever it wants with the income tax. This is not an issue unless one is ignorant or misinformed of the existence of the law making process.
The Congress passes laws and the president signs them in order to change the amount that the government can collect via the income tax. These laws are often challenged in court with valid arguments as to how much can be legally collected.
Choosing to deny or ignore the income tax laws is foolish and rightfully subject to penalty. Pretending that one can interpret the law and act outside the law when you do not agree with the law is a denial of the reality of the process.
Your denial of the process and the tax denier perversion of the process does not invalidate the process.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
(1) Tax lawyers in private practice have sufficient successes in court to encourage them to continue in this specialty. I know of several who are content with contingency fees -- they get paid based on the difference between what the IRS originally wanted and what the court says their client has to pay.
(2) Tax scofflaws (and drivers license scofflaws and a bunch of others) seem to think that claiming the law they disobey is unconstitutional serves as a Get Out of Jail Free card. It doesn't. It is true that an unconstitutional law is a nullity -- but the courts always start with the presumption that the law is valid and it's up to the scofflaw to prove otherwise. (So far, countless court decisions have upheld the validity of the income tax - and drivers license - laws.) At which point whatever penalties the law provides are imposed -- and disobeying a law in order to get a court case to challenge it is a willful violation and is punished accordingly.
SteveSy wrote:You're gonna piss off that kitty and its gonna throw down that melon cap.
I always respect the melon cap, and would never put it down hastily or mistreat it in any way.
We should have contests to be the weekly or monthly "Attendant Pro Melon Cap" whose duties shall consist of assuring that the Melon Cap "Football" (a small case that holds the Melon Cap during hand to paw combat and contains the codes to activate the Melon Cap's most secret functions) is never more than a few feet away.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
