sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
EMN, when is it OK to defend against tyrannical movements from the government?
So he was looking for a loophole? who uses "loopholes".... cheaters use loopholes....
As far as believing the income tax wasn't valid, I don't care if he genuinely believed it wasn't valid, you can be genuinely wrong.
The IRS doesn't just throw people in jail for not filing a return, they make every attempt to collect first. So he was likely informed more then once by the IRS he was wrong and he would be prosecuted, now if a government agency told me I was breaking the law and if I didn't knock it off they'd prosecute me, I'd go talk to a lawyer and see what's up. any good attorney or accountant would've told him that his 861 arguments were pure legal gibberish. Not only was he refusing to pay taxes, he was SELLING VIDEOS telling others about his shoddy research, thus he was attempting to trick other people into breaking the law with him. His argument was false and he got burned. Not one person has successfully battled prosecution for tax evasion on an 861 argument like Rose's. Not even 1.
let this sink in
"Sometimes it's dangerous to be right when the established authorities are the ones who are wrong"
I don't think it's right to sit here benefiting from our society without paying your fair share. If you want to live in a society with no
>Courts
>Police
>Public Health
>Environmental protection
>Workplace safety
>Roads
>Infrastructure
>Clean and affordable public water supplies
>Airports
>Parks
>Food and drug safety and health regulations
>Social Services
>Military
>Museums
>Libraries
>Postal Service
>Census
>Hospitals
>Mental Health
>Fibre optic phone lines
>rural internet access
>professional Fire Departments
>public transportation
>K-12 education
>Universities
> Colleges
>professional licensing
>Ports
> Railroads
And on and on and on, then please feel free to move to some country in Africa where you have none of that and no tax burden. Somalia is not the country I want to live in, if you and mr Rose want to make us into Somalia, I have better idea, just move to somalia, I'm certain they have no evil immigration and customs system in place since they have no real central government, so moving there should be as easy and coming over and settin your bags down, and because there's no ATF to worry about, you can own all the machine guns and RPGs you want with no government oversight whatsoever, did I mention no "official" taxation? (your local warlord may want some of what you have, ******* him off is not advisable, but hey there's no courts or cops to abuse your rights! so just pay your warlord because he won't let any system of justice ever take away your freedoms!)
Many people believe that Somalia’s economy has been in chaos since the collapse of its national government in 1991. We take a comparative institutional approach to examine Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy.
We find that although Somalia is poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness. We also describe how Somalia has provided basic law and order and a currency, which have enabled the country to achieve the coordination that has led to improvements in its standard of living.
One of the more recent heckling techniques adopted by government apologists of all stripes is to point to the Horn of Africa, usually while chortling, and say, “There! You don’t like government? You want anarchy? Well, what are you waiting for? Move to Somalia!”
Indeed, the mainstream press have painted Somalia with the broad-brush catchphrases “anarchic,” “lawless,” and “chaotic.” This, however, could not be further from the truth.
Since U.S. troops deposed the dominant governmental regime in the early 1990s, Somalia has been a hotbed of would-be, wanna-be, and actual governments all vying for uncontested rule over the populace. At present, the U.N. and U.S.-backed “official” government is capable of controlling only a few blocks of Mogadishu surrounding its immediate headquarters. African Union troops, headed by the ruling elite in Ethiopia, have thus far proven wholly ineffective in stomping various warlord-run militias and hardline Islamic rebels out of existence. To the contrary, such heavily armed bands roam about the countryside, often entirely unopposed, seizing territory while looting, raping, and killing the inhabitants. Even al-Qaida affiliated or sympathetic groups are now increasingly drawing the attention of U.S. special forces military units, determined to bring the “War on Terror” to yet another front...
...No, there is no “anarchy” in Somalia – not as that word is properly used; to denote an absence of rulers. While there may be many ways in which Somalis under such conditions are not hampered by the institution of taxation, and are thus free to trade what goods and services there are to be made or had on a voluntary, consensual basis, such conditions are not precisely conducive to optimum commerce. With a constant barrage of different warring factions running amok, each competing fiercely to be the one, uncontestable ruling force, there is only an atmosphere of impending statism with no current group of guerilla fighters able to muster enough firepower to snuff or drive away all of the others.
Loophole is when you use the exact wording of a law to break the intent of the law.
EMN, when is it OK to defend against tyrannical movements from the government?
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.
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.
*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.
.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?
We find that although Somalia is poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness. We also describe how Somalia has provided basic law and order (oh gosh, well try exercising your rights against a somali militiamen and tell me how it works out) and a currencyone of the lowest valued in the world, which have enabled the country to achieve the coordination that has led to improvements in its standard of livingto 48 years life expentancy and an infant mortality rate of 10%! WoooHooo! Anarchy FTW!.
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.
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.
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 is not their decision to make.
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.
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.
§ 1.1441-5
Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.
(a)Individuals. For purposes of chapter 3 of the Code, an individual's written statement that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a citizen or resident of the United States. This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate. An alien may claim residence in the United States by filing Form 1078 with the withholding agent in duplicate in lieu of the above statement.
(b)Partnerships and corporations. For purposes of chapter 3 of the Code a written statement from a partnership or corporation claiming that it is not a foreign partnership or foreign corporation may be relied upon by the withholding agent as proof that such partnership or corporation is domestic. This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate. It shall contain the address of the taxpayer's office or place of business in the United States and shall be signed by a member of the partnership or by an officer of the corporation. The official title of the corporate officer shall also be given.
(c)Disposition of statement and form. The duplicate copy of each statement and form filed pursuant to this section shall be forwarded with a letter of transmittal to Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA 19255. The original statement shall be retained by the withholding agent.
So he was looking for a loophole? who uses "loopholes".... cheaters use loopholes....
As far as believing the income tax wasn't valid, I don't care if he genuinely believed it wasn't valid, you can be genuinely wrong. The IRS doesn't just throw people in jail for not filing a return, they make every attempt to collect first. So he was likely informed more then once by the IRS he was wrong and he would be prosecuted, now if a government agency told me I was breaking the law and if I didn't knock it off they'd prosecute me, I'd go talk to a lawyer and see what's up. any good attorney or accountant would've told him that his 861 arguments were pure legal gibberish. Not only was he refusing to pay taxes, he was SELLING VIDEOS telling others about his shoddy research, thus he was attempting to trick other people into breaking the law with him. His argument was false and he got burned. Not one person has successfully battled prosecution for tax evasion on an 861 argument like Rose's. Not even 1.
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.
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:
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.
hat 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.
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.
For what reason? Oh, because they're benefiting from services they didn't pay for? Read Carsontech's response.
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 . 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.
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.
'.
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.
Stuff is dismissed all the time as being unconstitutional. judges do not automatically side with the government all the time.
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?
Logical fallacy, false comparison.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
http://originalintent.org/edu/docs/Jury Letter.pdfIn 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.
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.<snip>
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.Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.