sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
EMN, when is it OK to defend against tyrannical movements from the government?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Video share: When should you shoot a "cop"
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
*sigh*
Larken Rose does not believe the income tax law is valid. Explain how using a loophole is "cheating".
You can be genuinely wrong, and you can also be genuinely right. Follow the money; regardless of which one is true, the government isn't going to accept an answer it doesn't like. Whether Larken Rose was right OR wrong; he was punished by the government for daring to question their authority via civil disobedience. Would it matter to you if he WAS right, or would you just scoff and demand the loophole be fixed, so the government may continue extorting fees for services people may not want?
Taxation is theft. If we do not pay taxes, we are thrown in jail, beaten or killed. What difference is there between a mafiosa coming into my home, extorting a service fee to provide me with the services I have no choice in receiving, and our government? Say that I did want to pay a tax for the roads, but objected to my taxes going to un-Constitutional wars? Do I have a CHOICE? Are there any taxes I can opt out of, any services I can say I want no part of? NO. The Government takes my money by force, with no more consent from me than a slave, and uses it as they wish. It's THEFT. There is no voluntary participation; these "services" are thrust upon me whether I want them or not.
I am not familiar enough with the 861 argument to personally verify whether it is gibberish or not. Interesting that you seem utterly confident of its lack of validity with a day or less of research.
Larken Rose sold his work; it was up to the public to decide whether or not to buy it. If that is trickery, when people have a CHOICE, then what do you call taxes collected by force???
And though I haven't scoured the web, I don't doubt the percentage of people who successfully battled tax evasion is zero. Most people do not have the money to battle it, and a great many more are afraid of the punishments that will rain down upon them like the ten plagues of Egypt if they resist. We as a society have been conditioned to take our beatings with our eyes cast downward, never objecting, lest our masters hit us harder. If the system is never shaken, it remains legitimate, whether it is or not. Perhaps if MORE people did what Larken Rose did, it might draw enough attention to overwhelm the fear of retaliation, and some non-vested perspective could be offered. I'm sure NO lawyer would dare question the validity of the 861 argument without significant backing, as s/he would have much to lose if the established authorities are feeling vengeful.
This is not ground breaking information, sugar. The question is, when the established authorities are wrong; are you going to be brave enough to stand up to them?
Ahhh, the good old stand by Somalia argument
.Now that you've whipped that out of your arsenal, how about some counter information that didn't come from the lips of the MSM?
Link
Link
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Well lets define tyrannical first.
A government elected by its people, passing laws in legislative session that are validated by the court system is not nessecarily my definition of tyrannical.....
It's like the good 'ol Miller test for pornography, you know it when you see it, and I just don't see it.
We have a functioning legislature of people elected by their districts, elections are mostly free and fair, certainly better then in the past. I'm not living in fear that if I say something I'll be yanked and tossed in a secret camp, I can move freely day and night with no restrictions. I can still peaceably gather with other people, except if I offend a cer.... never mind that one, and all sorts of other things. if it got to the point where your every move is controlled (cue strange conspiracy from F1man) and there is no functioning method of redress, then we can start looking at resisting the tyrannical government. I don't think the government in its current form is the very definition of "tyrannical" overbearing, maybe, outright tyrannical... no.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So you are a positivist, you believe a law is good just because it went through the so called proper channels.
You think you can move freely. Yet you may receive a ticket for safely walking across the center of a block.
Have you not followed the threads where people have been yanked for speaking their minds on facebook? I will grant you that government apologist probably will be able to continue to express their views.
We need a permit to have our second A Rally in Olympia. I have seen cops interfere with people peaceably gathering.
Ummm if we get to a point where your every move is controlled it is already too late, why would you want to wait until then?
Redress is a joke. How can you possibly get redress, when they storm through your door and kill you, oops sorry wrong house!
Notice I said Tyrannical movements. I was trying to be careful with my wording there. I already believe our government is tyrannical, way more so than when the founders rebelled.
Our government regulates just about every activity you engage in, just because you feel you have a few choices you can freely engage in does not mean they are not controlling just about every aspect of your life, wanna wear a blue shirt? The amount of regulations that go into the making, selling , buying, of all the aspects of that shirt are crazy, making you pay more for your shirt and limiting your choices see you just appreciate what you see not what you can not see or imagine.
You yourself continue to espouse a belief for and approval it seems of a very low bar of RAS.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Good Idea.
Regardless of the court decisions? Really?
Wrong. You are ALWAYS restricted in your movements. It depends on how, where, when, d/t, and with what you want to move. You're most certainly ALWAYS restricted.
That would be too late.
When will it be too late to identify "tyranny"? It is a time sensitive thing ya know... Without hindsight, how does one identify exactly when they should have acted?
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Simple, he wants all the benefits of our society without the responsibilities of said society. he probably weaseled out of jury duty whenever he was called too. are his books and videos copyrighted?
If he did get off on that silly argument, yes I would want the law fixed. just like people who cheat on taxes by claiming exemptions they're not entitled to or who run untaxed fuel in their cars. I think fuel tax evaders in particular need to be cracked down upon.
If you want to compare it to theft and slavery then go right on ahead. Yes you do have a choice, you can run for office with elimination of taxes as your platform, you can campaign for likeminded candidates, you can vote, and you court redress if you have a genuine constitutional claim. you're not a helpless victim in all this.
Larken Rose... convicted. All I need to know to know his argument wasn't correct.
He seemed to think that only income derived from international trade was taxable, man did he learn the hard way.
.
Retaliation is a specifically defined punishment for committing a specific criminal act. it's not like you'll be hung for tax evasion. Lawyers question the law all the time, it's what they're paid to do, no lawyer is going to face any trouble from the feds if they represent a client with an argument rooted in law. Of course a lawyer can be sanctioned by the bar if they take up cases they know will lose. As most tax protesters have. courts have let some pretty bad hardened criminals off if their rights were violated (as it should be) a court would have no problem dismissing a case against someone if they a constitutional leg to stand on. they don't that's why tax evaders end up in prison, where they should be. I'll reiterate, people are NEVER thrown in jail immediately for failure to pay taxes, well I can't say that, but generally the IRS only locks people up if they consistently refuse to pay. paying taxes cannot be "negotiable." by very nature it must be enforceable if someone refuses to pay. The constitution gives congress the authority to levy taxes. this is settled law.
If they're truly wrong then yes. If truly wrong to you means no taxation then I don't know what to tell you. There has never been a single functioning society where the tax burden is zero. services have to be funded somehow. money don't grow on trees.
LOL :lol::lol::lol:
So your quote says, "It sucks, but it doesn't"
:banghead:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Well young man... you're certainly the provocateur.
carsontech
Activist Member
Why do these services have to be funded? Why not let a free-market decide whether these things should exist? Why should someone have to participant in society? It sounds like you believe in social contracts.
From what I'm getting from your posts, it seems if a government makes a decision, you think they made the correct decision... unless you don't agree with that decision. Come join the side that thinks all decisions that a government, majority, minority makes for others is not their decision to make.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
yeah... If the law is passed with regards to the applicable constitution or legal authority and meets the requirements set forth then it is a "legal" law, a "good" law as in a "good idea" not nessecarily. A good law as in "it's constitutional" yes.
That does not restrict your movement anymore then saying you can't take a shortcut through an active power substation by climbing the fence. it's a law put in place to facilitate traffic flow on the street. The traffic code is written to not care what other activity is happening other then what YOU are doing. this way you're held to a specific standard. Montana used to have only a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit for passenger cars, until a trooper wrote a ticket for some clown doing almost 100 mph on a two lane road, the man appealed the ticket and the law was struck down because it was ruled that it was "too vague" and violated one's due process rights.
I'll admit, I haven't seen the thread, and I will not comment because I have no idea what was said that resulted in an arrest.
Which are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in knowing how many people will be there, what roads need to be closed, etc. you can't just block the street whenever you feel like it, that violates other people's right to use the road. Also if it's a controversial issue then police officers need to be available in case any disputes break out, have trash cans available for grabage, porta-potties for health needs if required. The restrictions on getting permits are quite reasonable and are not determined by the content of your speech.
1) Becuase I don't believe in committing violence when it's not nessecary.
2) How often does That happen and has a "wrong house raid" ever been conducted on purpose to intimidate or silence people? I've never heard of that happening. cite please if you know of a case in which coming to the wrong address was used to silence people who petitioned for redress.
Well that's a shocker :shocker:
We're also much freer then when we rebelled in many ways too. Maybe you can tell me just how well the colonials treated native americans in those days just as an example? or slavery, that's gone too... considering mr. constitution himself owned many, and likely had an extramarital affair with a slave. maybe raped her... I doubt the founders would be too critical.
And yet a blue shirt is less then 15 bucks anywhere I want to buy one, a plain blue T is less then 5 dollars. remember, regulations are passed for a reason, usually because somebody has been wronged. maybe if companies treated people right the first time they wouldn't be so heavily regulated.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Because the free market has a history of exploiting people to make a quick buck. even as lately as the 1990s the CEO of Brown and Williamson Tobacco denied knowing nicotine was addictive at the same time his company was investing heavily (in secret) in boosting nicotine content of its cigarettes. someone has to watch out for the people. what are some other free market success stories? The Coal and Iron police who were hired by mining companies to [strike]beat union organizers[/strike] ensure peace and order in the labor camps? Or dumping PCBs in creek beds and contaminating ground water? or maybe indentured servitude in early virginia? sure lets let the Free Market do everything!
Why should someone have to participate in society?
Good question, the answer is equally important, because we can't have 300,000,000 sets of rules each applying to a different person. if you and I live in the desert, and you live downstream from me, I doubt you'd like it that much if I declared myself a "non participant in society" and put a big dam on my end of creek thus drying out your crops and cattle while I got a nice lake to jet ski on. would you rather have a government with agents who will make me restore your water, or would you rather risk a gun battle over the creek?
If I don't like a law, I use the instruments available to change it. I don't think every decision government makes is correct, but I can't think of any way an institution run by people will make decisions that 100% of the populace will agree with.
Last edited:
carsontech
Activist Member
Thanks for sharing your views. I don't think the arguments you made are good arguments for government. They are a good argument for rules.
I believe there should be rules, just like you. In my philosophy, there doesn't have to be a publicly ran government to have rules.
In a stateless land, I don't think anyone should have to "participate" in society. They would still have to follow "the rules", though.
In a truly free-market, people will decide what services will exist just as they do with other products. If there is a demand for roads, a market will spring up for them. The same thing for security, education, etc. Everyone will pay for their own use of those services. No one will pay for anyone else's use of those products or services.
If you want to know what I'm talking about, hop over to mises.org and research a bit about Austrian economics. I never was really into economics until I started reading the stuff over at the Mises Institute.
I use to think the same way as you, by the way, but something happened. My preference for open carrying had to do with a big majority of how my thinking changed. That's a story for another thread, though. Basically, open carrying, and the community around it, was part of what helped a snowball form. The snowball kept getting bigger and bigger. Needles to say I started looking at things in a whole new light. I don't think the snowball can get much bigger than it is now, as I believe I have a solid philosophy with a very solid foundation in liberty. It's good to never say "never", though, so I try to keep an open mind.
In the end, I'm not saying some of your views are wrong or right, as that's subjective. I think my "way" is better, though.
I do believe there is an absolute moral right or wrong. The basic "no no's" are theft, murder, and slavery. Have a look at this video to see a hint of what my philosophy is based on:
[video=youtube;muHg86Mys7I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I[/video]
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I would say, don't waste your time on it.
It's interesting that the income tax is not voluntary. Yet you've never paid the income tax unless you've been made liable under section 1461 of the IRC.
The 861 argument sounds plausible on it's face and yet it's not what you should be looking for.
The real question is, where is the penalty for not paying the socialist security taxes.
Yes IRS agents, and any police officers who help them, are breaking the law if they try to take your house for back taxes if they don't come with a court order (warrant). That is a felony in Washington.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
You've never paid the income tax, so quit trying to get up on a high horse.
Income tax falls under Subtitle A of the IRC and you've never once paid a taxes levied under Subtitle A.
As far as the 861 argument, it's garbage.
As for WILLFUL Failure to file, he has not been shown any law requiring him to file. If there is no legal requirement to do something and everyone else believes you are required to do that act, yet you don't do it, how is that any sort of loop hole?
I learned that the whole system works around your "loop holes." If you don't believe me then wear a blindfold or dark sunglasses into every restaurant you go into and never take it or them off.
I'll bet you believe that you're legally required to have a SSN to live and work with in the states of the union also. Yet you'll never find any such requirement in the law.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
I think Brandon Raub would disagree.
I think David Sarti would disagree.
I think Victor Ortega would disagree.
I think Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman and Samir Khan would disagree.
I think Jose Guerena would disagree.
I think Justin Hallman would disagree.
I think Alvin Schlangen would disagree.
I think Jodi and Scott Ferris would disagree.
I think Lashonn White would disagree.
I think Ashley Warden would disagree.
I think John Adams would disagree.
I think this 10 year old boy would disagree.
I think Robert Pierson would disagree.
I think Noel Polanco would disagree.
I think Diane Tran would disagree.
What about the executive order allowing the government to seize all privately and publicly held resources?
What about the Michigan DNR destroying traditional species livestock?
What about the NDAA?
What about the Patriot Act?
What about the drones in our skies?
What about the surveillance cameras on the streets of Maryland?
What about the surveillance armored truck rolling around Miami?
What about Bloomberg’s ban on soda?
What about QE3?
What about ObamaCare?
What about the cops murdering family pets?
What about the cameras being installed on buses in Baltimore?
What about the war on drugs?
What about the arrest of silent dancing protesters at the Jefferson Memorial?
What about the warrantless electronic surveillance by the Feds?
Sorry, sugar, but unlike you, I don’t need a boot on my neck to recognize tyranny when I see it.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
Now you are making assumptions without basis. He didn't agree with the system, and how it was run. He tried to change it. It's sickening that you automatically equivocate civil disobedience with freeloading. He didn't win the million dollar lottery and then remain on food stamps. The woman who did THAT is a freeloader.
As for jury duty, it is call “duty” because it is actually a "responsibility" of each citizen, and is not illegal to ignore, but you will be penalized for ignoring it too many times. So we can be punished for something that is not a crime, because the government can dictate ethics and morality. No problem there, I'm sure! :uhoh:
Do you have anything other than speculation about Rose and his jury service? I have not been able to find a LAW that requires someone to serve. Government decrees our actions while trying to withold our ability to make a choice in the matter. If I do not have the right to choose, then I am a slave. Vive le liberte?
For what reason? Oh, because they're benefiting from services they didn't pay for? Read Carsontech's response.
I very well could, but I'm not criminal or corrupt enough to make it into office
. There is a saying that the folks most qualified to run for office have too much moral integrity to do so. You have to understand, I have no inclination to rule over or control my fellow man; I just want the same in return. Abide by some rules, but do not try to rule over me.It is incredibly perverse that the only way to effectively change a corrupt system is to join it. Especially when the system is designed to protect itself from the threat of being changed by someone who doesn't support its current practices.
Oh, yes, because ONLY the guilty are ever convicted.
He disagreed with the established authority, and he was punished, yes. You haven't proved that he was wrong.
But you will be imprisoned and all of your assets seized. It's just short of a hanging.
Obviously you've never heard of a little thing called an 'agenda', 'personal motivation' or 'corruption'.
In an ideal world, a court shouldn't have a problem dismissing a Constitutional based case. But we've seen how our government regards the Constitution; merely an obstacle they can push aside when it benefits them. You are naive if you believe human interest never enters the equation.
It's law if the lawmakers make it law. Let's go back to my scenario of a mobster forcing his way into my home, setting up some laws, and forcing me to abide by them via extortion or threat of violence. Does that make him legitimate?
Well, according to the Fed, it not only grows on trees, it grows out of thin air. I'm not opposed to paying a privatized business for services I want, support or need, but I do object to having the government telling me how much money they will seize and use in ways that I do not consent to. I do object to them inflating the dollar til it becomes little more than glorified toilet paper.
The quote says Somalia is not the hot bed of chaotic anarchy you claimed it to be. It did say that it has been under various chaotic government rule, which seems to provide the "suck" you so eloquently mentioned. So, what was your point again?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So Hitler was good then?
Most laws passed now do not meet constitutional muster statist judges had to change the definition of words in the constitution to let these apply.
T
Really grasping at straws there and not even attempting to address my point.
So the rest of us who can look both ways and cross safely must be redirected because of the fools who can't?
No roads where blocked and there are plenty of parking, compelling state interest is another statist judge invention to erode rights. I should have the right to peaceably gather without state permission.
1) Yes and because you love the state laws and controlling people, the bar for necessary is when it's too late. You won't be able to fight back when you are lined up at the edge of a trench. Of course the government will need some folks to pull the trigger on the "dissidents".
2) That it happened even one time is bad enough but it happens all too often.
Sigh, if he raped her why did she choose to move back from a country where she would have been free to be with him, if you are referring to Jefferson, although Madison is the architect of the constitution? Some colonist treated American Indians with high respect some didn't, believe it or not before the growth of a strong federal government, relations between Indians and the states were much better. The worst of the violence coming after the war for southern independence when U.S. kept a stronger standing army .So you don't like the constitutional restraints on government is that what you are saying?
You missed the point but then agree with the point that actually counters your point.
Regulations are usually passed for special interest and because of big money lobbyist and sometimes as a quick fix to pander to the public, you punish all because of a few, free market is the best incentive to treat people right.
And a blue shirt would be a lot less and you would have a lot more choices without the government. You are happy being given something by the government.
Plus if you do a little study you'll find that many of the government regulations (unconstitutional drug wars) do more harm than good.
Or how about the 17 year old that was terminal ill and there was an experimental pill that could have prolonged his life, but the FDA said no because he wasn't 18, he didn't live to see 18.
If you don't know smoking is bad for you........
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I have not been able to find a LAW that requires someone to serve. Government decrees our actions while trying to withold our ability to make a choice in the matter. If I do not have the right to choose, then I am a slave. Vive le liberte?
In my state, RCW 2.36.170
RCW 2.36.170
Failure of juror to appear — Penalty.
A person summoned for jury service who intentionally fails to appear as directed shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (punishable by 90 days in county lock up)
28 U.S.C. section 1864(b) For Federal Courts
the imposition of a fine from $100 to $1,000; imprisonment for not more than 3 days; and the potential penalty of community service.
You benefit from many things the government does pay for. again you're perfectly free to move to a country where there is no system of taxation if you wish, I can think of several, please why stay here?
I very well could, but I'm not criminal or corrupt enough to make it into office
It is incredibly perverse that the only way to effectively change a corrupt system is to join it. Especially when the system is designed to protect itself from the threat of being changed by someone who doesn't support its current practices.
So there's some rules but you're above them? that's interesting. as for "some rules" who decides "some rules" how are they to be enacted and enforced? we can go back to the example of you living downstream from me in the desert, you and your family are dying of dehydration with no irrigation because I dammed the stream so I can have a lake to jet ski on, what rule forbids my from dopping a mound of dirt inside my property? are you going to FORCE ME and CONTROL where I drop rocks and dirt on my property? whose rules? under what authority are your rules given, who enforces those rules? your problem with not wanting to control people is that people don't live in a vacuum, people need to be controlled for the good of everyone because some people only care about their own benefit and not that of the community.
Oh, yes, because ONLY the guilty are ever convicted.
He disagreed with the established authority, and he was punished, yes. You haven't proved that he was wrong.
Tax cheats are never wrong, it's pointless to even try. they don't accept any argument in favor of taxes so proving them wrong is a waste of time.
'.
Stuff is dismissed all the time as being unconstitutional. judges do not automatically side with the government all the time.
Logical fallacy, false comparison.
Two separate issues.
As for the relevant one, you can never forsee which services you will need or not. and even if you don't use schools you benefit from them because we have an educated workforce, you benefit from professional licensing so that your house doesn't collapse on you becuase a complete bozo built it, you benefit from consumer protection so you can reasonably warned about dangerous products, or laws madating recalls. you benefit from roads so that you can drive to those private businesses and order materials to be delivered to you, and depending upon where you live the government may have installed the internet infrastructure so you're not block your phone line while responding to my posts. but this stuff doesn't come cheap and if people decided not to pay and were allowed to then society as we know it would fall apart.
So move there, if it's so nice compared to us due to lack of government then move over and take the whole family!
seriously... you sound just like rich hollywood liberals who claim that living in "villages" is a superior way of life because they're living in "nature" some actress a while back made that claim that primitive villages are a better way to live, funny how none of them live in primitive villages...
your statement would be more credible if you were willing to live where you claim lack of government has made so great. how many americans at the Mises institute have moved to Somalia, the land they claim is much better from no government? yeah I thought so. that should tell you something. that doesn't even pass the dumb test.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
http://originalintent.org/edu/docs/Jury Letter.pdf
^^^^
You should send that letter back to them.
Besides the jury selection in Washington is not constitutional or fair and so you cannot be forced to show up. The notice is not sent via certified mail for 1 and for 2 the letter states that your response is the only proof they have of you receiving the notice.
If you toss the notice in the trash there is nothing that can be done to you unless they can PROVE to a jury that you in fact DID receive notice to appear then there is nothing that can be done to you.
The law is there as a feel good measure only.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The federal income tax is the central issue, not "taxes" in general. The federal income tax is, when being taken before I have earned my money, by my employer, unjust to say the least and unconstitutional technically if it were to be tested in court.
It does not state that my money can be taken by my employer. It simply states that I must pay a tax. later tax code, passed by congress, dictated that I have my money confiscated by my employer.
Now, the Necessary and Proper Clause may deny my victory before the Supremes, but I think that I may win if I prove that I can pay my tax bill, and always could have payed my tax bill. The tax code presumes that I will commit the crime of failure to pay my income tax bill, without proof that I have not done so in the past that would warrant a preemptive confiscation of my property by my employer.
Repeal the provisions of the tax code that force employers to confiscate my money. And more broadly, repeal the 16A.