Video share: When should you shoot a "cop"

[Freedom1Man]

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.

You're not having the INCOME TAX withheld from you paycheck at all. That is the hitch. You're only having the taxes that you, under the law, VOLUNTEERED to have withheld by filling out a (voluntary) request (or a withholding ALLOWANCE) for withholding, Form W-4.

Instead everything being withheld was by your request, unless you gave a written notice to terminate withholding, that the company you work at has agreed to do for you. EVERYTHING being withheld from your pay falls under Subtitle C of the IRC.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You're not having the INCOME TAX withheld from you paycheck at all. That is the hitch. You're only having the taxes that you, under the law, VOLUNTEERED to have withheld by filling out a (voluntary) request (or a withholding ALLOWANCE) for withholding, Form W-4.

Instead everything being withheld was by your request, unless you gave a written notice to terminate withholding, that the company you work at has agreed to do for you. EVERYTHING being withheld from your pay falls under Subtitle C of the IRC.

Cite and Quote the EXACT section of the IRC that states you may have your hourly wages not subject to take and that you only need to request to terminate.
I've just read over the applicable section and the only mentions of exemption are for specific occurences, not just anyone who wants to not pay taxes. go ahead and cite your information.

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

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?

First of all, the government pays for nothing. They take MY money and spend it as they see fit. And they don't spend it wisely. Oh, and no, I'm not free to leave anytime I wish. Every citizen must pay an exit fee to the government. It would cost my family over $1,600 just for the privilege of being able to ex-pat.

So there's some rules but you're above them?

Where did I say that? Please refrain from hyperbole.

that's interesting. as for "some rules" who decides "some rules" how are they to be enacted and enforced?

You're a big boy. (I assume. Your nanny statist attitude is starting to convince me otherwise.) Research voluntaryism.

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?

I'll answer this scenario when YOU answer the one I proposed first; why is a mobster imposing his will on me illegitimate, but the government is not?

under what authority are your rules given,

I want you to answer this question about government. I never gave my consent to the system, so where did they get the authority to run my life? Could it be, that THEY, gave themselves the authority?

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.

SMH. So people are not good or smart enough to rule over themselves, but they're smart enough to elect people who are good enough to rule over them for them? How can you not see the contradiction in your own sentence above? What makes public officials so much more honorable and trustworthy than a private citizen?

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.

Assuming you were going for sarcasm, the exact same could be applied to statists. Funny how that works.

Stuff is dismissed all the time as being unconstitutional. judges do not automatically side with the government all the time.

You have a great deal of blind faith in the infallibility of a man elected to govern, but no faith whatsoever in a man who governs only himself. Can you explain that paradox?

Logical fallacy, false comparison.

How so? The mobster (government/police) comes into my home, threatens me with injury (jail, seizure of assets, etc) if I do not comply, then puts upon me a service where my participation was not voluntary. Explain how the comparison is false?

Two separate issues.
As for the relevant one, you can never forsee which services you will need or not.

Which is why RESPONSIBLE people prepare for such things as is reasonably possible. No one has a crystal ball, but adults take life as it comes at them, rather than doing it the statist way of never growing up and expecting insurance/government/extreme medical care to fix it for them.

and even if you don't use schools you benefit from them because we have an educated workforce,

ROFL. Okay. Let's see, where do we rate in the world as far as education?...

Link

A 2009 study found that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science, behind nations like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland.

Just 6 percent of U.S. students performed at the advanced level on an international exam administered in 56 countries in 2006.

Trust me, sugar, the Prussian educational model isn't benefiting me in any way whatsoever. If you have doubts, ask your cashier to make change for you without using the register or a smart phone.

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.

I could just as easily benefit from those services without government picking my pocket.

you benefit from roads so that you can drive to those private businesses and order materials to be delivered to you,

Again, I could receive these same benefits without government picking my pocket. Oh, and those roads? In pretty ****** condition, if you ask me. Didn't Obama sign some legislation last year paying for a whole bunch of new bridges we didn't need? Smart spending right there!!!

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.

If responding to your posts is a benefit of government service, then I could just as well do without. None of the above examples you've mentioned are the role of government. I suppose you supported the taxpayers bailing out GM, because, ohmygosh, society would fall apart as we know it if they'd gone bankrupt and made room for either a comeback or for a new manufacturer to come forth!!!

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.

You are operating under the false assumption that people would not have the intelligence, desire or drive to provide these services for themselves. Why is it you have such a low opinion of your fellow man?

So move there, if it's so nice compared to us due to lack of government then move over and take the whole family!

It's not nice because there is no lack of government over there. I'm beginning to suspect you didn't even bother to read the articles.

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...

Thank you for the laugh, sugar, truly. I'd reciprocate the favor by telling you how you come across, but you'd take the adjectives I view as four letter words and most likely see them as compliments.

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.

You make the asinine assumption that I want to live in utter chaos while staying here in the states, cheating and stealing benefits I have no desire to pay for. That, doesn't even pass the dumb test. If your reading comprehension is this bad, then nothing short of a clue by four is going to get my point across to you.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

First of all, the government pays for nothing. They take MY money and spend it as they see fit. And they don't spend it wisely. Oh, and no, I'm not free to leave anytime I wish. Every citizen must pay an exit fee to the government. It would cost my family over $1,600 just for the privilege of being able to ex-pat.

No you technically don't, once you're settled in another country you are no longer in US juristiction. they're not going to "recover" you for failure to pay 1600 bucks.

Where did I say that? Please refrain from hyperbole.
You're a big boy. (I assume. Your nanny statist attitude is starting to convince me otherwise.) Research voluntaryism.

Abide by some rules, but do not try to rule over me

I'll answer this scenario when YOU answer the one I proposed first; why is a mobster imposing his will on me illegitimate, but the government is not?

This question is a trap there is no right answer to you other then yours. I could explain the minor differences like you can sue a government agent easier then Luca Brasi, there's generally a thing about cruel and unusual punishment, how many times has the government sanctioned dropping you off a bridge in cement shoes? Or that your local mob boss was not popularily elected, not subject to rule of law. They tend to use assassination instead of arrest and trial. Their "rules" are not subject to any kind of review by you, or a court, and if you challenge them they will likely beat and kill you instead of attempt to arrest you first. many differences. But I know you're going to refuse those arguments...

I want you to answer this question about government. I never gave my consent to the system, so where did they get the authority to run my life? Could it be, that THEY, gave themselves the authority?
SMH. So people are not good or smart enough to rule over themselves, but they're smart enough to elect people who are good enough to rule over them for them? How can you not see the contradiction in your own sentence above? What makes public officials so much more honorable and trustworthy than a private citizen?

Well the assumption is that a group of people directly meeting to set rules are legislation are better then hundreds or thousands of people deciding all their own sets of rules and making them up as they go, the legislative process insures that laws are fairly passed and apply to EVERYONE. not just people who want to voluntarily be a member of society.

You have a great deal of blind faith in the infallibility of a man elected to govern, but no faith whatsoever in a man who governs only himself. Can you explain that paradox?

because the idea of a legslature is that areas of different interests will have different people representing different interests, to make law these people have to more or less agree on a law the guy representing the district with the big chemical plant has to balance with the guy representing an area that depends on a clean lake. that way these interests balance out. what happens in a society where people "govern themselves" big chemical plant dumps all the waste they want. people from the lake come up and ask them to not do that, the chemical guys tell the lake guys to pound sand. so if the lake guys don't want to die by contamination they have no choice but force chemical people to shut down with violent force. and after lake people subjagate chemical people, the surviving folks from the chemical district are now blamed for all the problems of the lake district and are being ruled in a dictatorship by the lake people. the very system you suggest makes people LESS free in the long run.

How so? The mobster (government/police) comes into my home, threatens me with injury (jail, seizure of assets, etc) if I do not comply, then puts upon me a service where my participation was not voluntary. Explain how the comparison is false?

because the government is elected, "We the people" the mob is a private entity who wants no one to stand in their way of making money.

Which is why RESPONSIBLE people prepare for such things as is reasonably possible. No one has a crystal ball, but adults take life as it comes at them, rather than doing it the statist way of never growing up and expecting insurance/government/extreme medical care to fix it for them.

Well that's great, tell everyone "sux 2 b u, now you get to starve" why don't you read a frickin' history book and tell how that one's worked out? Julius Caeser rose to power with the full support of the Roman Prolatariat, Hitler rose to power with the full support of the german workers and poor, every time people have suffered with no hope is when totalitarian government takes over. people don't care about abstract concepts like "freedom" or "personal responsibility" if they can't get anything to eat. or if their kid is dying of some disease and the cure is there but they can't afford it. If people can't do business in dollars they invariably will do it in violence. I will tell you if I had a child who was dying of some disease and the medicine was there to save him/her but I couldn't afford it and there was no programs, I wouldn't hesistate one minute to drastically reduce the overall health of the doctor if he didn't administer the medicine, as any good parent should be willing to do. That's why we have such programs to help those less fortunate, and so they don't feel the need to hurt/maim/steal/ or kill. This isn't Kabul, there's no reason that people shouldn't be able to have food and medicine for their families. Now I certianly realize there's many free loaders on the system that should be kicked off, but not in every case. Certainly we need strong welfare reform, but the services most certainly should be there for those who really need them. Welfare as a concept though is certainly a role of the state as it helps maintain order.

I could just as easily benefit from those services without government picking my pocket.

Again, I could receive these same benefits without government picking my pocket. Oh, and those roads? In pretty ****** condition, if you ask me. Didn't Obama sign some legislation last year paying for a whole bunch of new bridges we didn't need? Smart spending right there!!!

Oh so you're going to build a whole system of national highways and rail lines? Government ineffeceincy is not the main topic here, that can always be improved. How Much money should i carry with me to pay your numerous private road companies for a road trip? what if a non-government entity decides it's not profitable to bring roads to my town? again we have a government to help insure and facilitate freedom of movement within the states.

If responding to your posts is a benefit of government service, then I could just as well do without. None of the above examples you've mentioned are the role of government. I suppose you supported the taxpayers bailing out GM, because, ohmygosh, society would fall apart as we know it if they'd gone bankrupt and made room for either a comeback or for a new manufacturer to come forth!!!

Not really, GM going out of business wouldn't effect the market to buy cars.
Internet is a different matter entirely, easy internet access brings a wealth of information to one's fingertips, how much case law or how much about the right to bear arms would you know without it? this is the one single greatest tool in terms of making people freer and more independent ever created. it is certainly a government interest being served to make sure everyone can access this awesome tool that allows people to learn so much as never before.

You are operating under the false assumption that people would not have the intelligence, desire or drive to provide these services for themselves. Why is it you have such a low opinion of your fellow man?

I don't think it can be done in a workable national system. If one lives in Seattle, what use do they immediately see for a well maintained freeway heading all the way to Boston like I-90 does? if it was up to a giant mess of private companies I don't think it would work. different systems would have different road markings, different symbols, how would rules of the road be enforced from system to system? and some people would build roads in such a way as not to allow people on to competing systems. this comes up with just a system of paved surfaces. most government services are there because a private company has determined it's not profitable enough to provide them. or provide them for their interests only. you think modern policing is bad, well why don't you try asserting your rights with private police hired to keep workers in line and beat them up if they try to organize?



I standby my assertion, if Mises claims somalia is better, why don't any of their fellows live there?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

We could seriously do this for a week straight, and never come any closer to changing each other's minds. Since there is nothing to be gained by this, let's just agree to disagree and amiably loathe each other's views.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Cite and Quote the EXACT section of the IRC that states you may have your hourly wages not subject to take and that you only need to request to terminate.
I've just read over the applicable section and the only mentions of exemption are for specific occurences, not just anyone who wants to not pay taxes. go ahead and cite your information.

That is not how the law works.

I say that there is no law requiring that it be taken out. Since there is no legal requirement, all the withholding is VOLUNTARY.

Now since I have declared that the law does not exist creating a liability to pay Subtitle C taxes, it is incumbent upon you to show that it does exist.

Since this might not compute, I will show you a logical form. http://web.nossn.com/specvest/nossn.nsf/b896852a62036d1e852568f0001d68fc/e611d21abdc5b70f8525691d002064d1/$FILE/w-4t.pdf

 

[Citizen]

You can always tell a good thread by the number of posts with multiple quotes and replies within a single post! :banana:

 

[Citizen]

I think [long list of links].

+1

We silly Americans put up with a lot more than the founders ever did from George III. A lot more.

 

[Freedom1Man]

+1

We silly Americans put up with a lot more than the founders ever did from George III. A lot more.

You're very right.

 

[The Trickster]

I just want to say that this has probably been one of the most informative threads that I have read in a very long time. Thank you all for indirectly provoking many new thoughts in my head.

 

[OC for ME]

You're not having the INCOME TAX withheld from you paycheck at all. That is the hitch. You're only having the taxes that you, under the law, VOLUNTEERED to have withheld by filling out a (voluntary) request (or a withholding ALLOWANCE) for withholding, Form W-4.

Instead everything being withheld was by your request, unless you gave a written notice to terminate withholding, that the company you work at has agreed to do for you. EVERYTHING being withheld from your pay falls under Subtitle C of the IRC.

Interesting observation. Under the terms of my employment I am required to complete a Form W-4. If I do not my employer will complete the Form W-4 indicating single non-head of household. If I object I will be terminated. Your specific situation may be different. The choice is mine.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Interesting observation. Under the terms of my employment I am required to complete a Form W-4. If I do not my employer will complete the Form W-4 indicating single non-head of household. If I object I will be terminated. Your specific situation may be different. The choice is mine.

I would get that in writing and then the company you work for could be sued for fraud. The term employee means one who has voluntarily filled out a W-4.

You might offer them this and see what happens

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

Force again and you think you are free.

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?

The government doesn't own or pay for anything it steals from others to pay for things. I stay here because I want to free the land of my birth, unfortunately it means confronting statist.

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.

If you need rules not to harm others something is wrong with you. This also leaves out the original intention of our courts of those being harmed suing you.

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.

Nope just storm them with redcoats how dare they ignore the navigation acts, dump our tea in the ocean and make whiskey without paying taxes.

Stuff is dismissed all the time as being unconstitutional. judges do not automatically side with the government all the time.

Judges have also craftily narrowed what is consitutional, and made many exception like silly inventions as "states interest".
FDR ended the Lochner era of judging with dictatorial threats and movements.

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.

Oh please, the free market weeds these things out a lot quicker, government actually prolongs many of these problems. Maddoff comes to mind. Read Stossel's No they Can't.
Now since you live in Washington and I build houses let me tell you from first hand experience that licensing in this state has nothing I reiterate nothing to do with competency (much like driver's licenses). There is no test you give the state and insurance company some money and "WAlla" you are a contractor. Also your local inspection agency has no accountability, zero.....if he passes something that doesn't meet code.

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...

And you sound like those who may have told Rosa Parks not ride the bus if she didn't like where she had to sit.

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.

Who made the claim Somalia was better, you made the false claim that anarchy was Somalia's problem.

 

[OC for ME]

I would get that in writing and then the company you work for could be sued for fraud. The term employee means one who has voluntarily filled out a W-4.

You might offer them this and see what happens

Interesting. I have learned something new today. Thank you.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

+1

We silly Americans put up with a lot more than the founders ever did from George III. A lot more.

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know what's worse; that we are so tolerant of such tyranny, or that we are afflicted with the indoctrinated masses who see nothing wrong with it, dismisses it as irrelevant, or supports double standards when it suits them. Such as this gem below;

So he was looking for a loophole? who uses "loopholes".... cheaters use loopholes....

Loophole is when you use the exact wording of a law to break the intent of the law.

Oh, and no, I'm not free to leave anytime I wish. Every citizen must pay an exit fee to the government. It would cost my family over $1,600 just for the privilege of being able to ex-pat.

(emphasis by PistolPackingMomma) No you technically don't, once you're settled in another country you are no longer in US juristiction. they're not going to "recover" you for failure to pay 1600 bucks.

Though, I'm not surprised at the double standard of morality being displayed here. This is the same guy who advocates candidates campaign on a platform of deception in order to implement his preferred agenda, so perhaps he understands the true nature of government after all.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The government doesn't own or pay for anything it steals from others to pay for things. I stay here because I want to free the land of my birth, unfortunately it means confronting statist.

No it's not theft, the people as a whole have agreed to taxation by electing candidates to congress in accordance with the US constitution which gives the congress the specific power to levy taxes. It is in fact consented to. if the majority of people dont like the tax policy they can elect a new congress or run for office.

If you need rules not to harm others something is wrong with you. This also leaves out the original intention of our courts of those being harmed suing you.

Wrong or not it still happens. look around throughout history, people cheat and exploit each other all the time if it means benefitting them just a little bit more. We can bring up again the numerous times private entities have screwed the people, see you think that government is automatically evil and that the free market is the best way to run things, I don't really trust either of them to do everything. there is a time and place for government and a time and place for private industry. you can look at all the abuses committed by private entities, lying about nicotines addictiveness, violent actions to kill or injure union organizers, dumping dangerous chemicals into water tables and covering it up, cutting corners and building unsafe structures, sending coal miners down into the mines with no respirators or spare supplies to hold out if the mine shaft collapsed. We can think of the numerous abuses of the Chinese workers on the railroad who were treated far worse then any plantation slave in the south, How about the Titanic? in which White Star Line determined that a good view from the first class cabins were more important the lifeboats, they travelled fast into an area with known floating ice just so they could make it into New York a day early, and the rich first class passengers were prioritized into lifeboats.

example after example, private businesses put dollars above people. and that's fair the goal of a business is to make money, but someone has to watch out for the commoner's interests as well. you keep saying "the free market takes care of this better" but they NEVER have, so what is your support for that argument? I'm not aware of any functioning libertarian society having ever existed, I frankly think it's just as realistic as pure communism, sure libertarianism sounds great on essays put forth by the Austrian School, but so does the Communist Manifesto both ideas are unrealistic utopias becuase they ignore the imperfect nature of man. Therefore an imperfect system of government and economic philosophy is needed. As far as courts, who establishes the courts? under whose authorty do these courts operate? how are buildings and judges paid for? and once the ruling is down how do you enforce your order for me to remove my dam, will there be an executive branch of [strike]police officers[/strike] freedom officers who coerce me into removing rocks on my own property? or will you have to risk injury enforcing the order yourself? the libertarians keep accusing me of misrepresenting their views, but no one ever answers this question in a way that doesn't contradict their previous statements.

Oh please, the free market weeds these things out a lot quicker, government actually prolongs many of these problems. Maddoff comes to mind. Read Stossel's No they Can't.
Now since you live in Washington and I build houses let me tell you from first hand experience that licensing in this state has nothing I reiterate nothing to do with competency (much like driver's licenses). There is no test you give the state and insurance company some money and "WAlla" you are a contractor. Also your local inspection agency has no accountability, zero.....if he passes something that doesn't meet code.

So that means the system needs reform, not being brought down

And you sound like those who may have told Rosa Parks not ride the bus if she didn't like where she had to sit.
Who made the claim Somalia was better, you made the false claim that anarchy was Somalia's problem.

And you would've told her??????? Oh well let the free market provide busses you can choose your seat on?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know what's worse; that we are so tolerant of such tyranny, or that we are afflicted with the indoctrinated masses who see nothing wrong with it, dismisses it as irrelevant, or supports double standards when it suits them. Such as this gem below;

No I was pointing out to a anarchy apologist that she truly doesnt need to pay expat taxes if she geniunely believes taxation is wrong.... Isn't that what you said ? geniunely believing you're right means you shouldn't have to pay?

Though, I'm not surprised at the double standard of morality being displayed here. This is the same guy who advocates candidates campaign on a platform of deception in order to implement his preferred agenda, so perhaps he understands the true nature of government after all.

Also if you note the context of that thread it's to enact quicker change in allowing people to defend themselves by legally running for office a candidate to a relatively low-level executive branch position. Not to decieve on an entire platform, but run a popular platform so they can be elected to effect change in that one particular issue. a political "Guerilla campaign" if you will with specific methodology and objectives. and everything I proposed on that thread violates NO LAWS whatsoever.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

No I was pointing out to a anarchy apologist that she truly doesnt need to pay expat taxes if she geniunely believes taxation is wrong.... Isn't that what you said ?

No, that is not what I said. I said taxation (without voluntary consent) is theft. What entitles you or anyone else to my property for services I did not choose to solicit? If I choose a service I would like to benefit from, I would gladly pay for it. What I AM opposed to is a person I did not vote for seizing my assets and redistributing them for purposes I do not consent to.

geniunely believing you're right means you shouldn't have to pay?

"Genuine belief" is not enough to make something so, and I never said it did. You are trying to argue in moral relativism, which is a weak position. I contend that it is not the anti-tax crowd who is stealing from you; it is YOU who are stealing from US, via the force of thugs appointed for the task. You genuinely believe that the government can and should make me pay for things I do not want and do not use, much less "benefit" from, all because you're somehow entitled to a pre-determined percentage of my property in order to make society work.

Also if you note the context of that thread it's to enact quicker change in allowing people to defend themselves by legally running for office a candidate to a relatively low-level executive branch position. Not to decieve on an entire platform, but run a popular platform so they can be elected to effect change in that one particular issue. a political "Guerilla campaign" if you will with specific methodology and objectives. and everything I proposed on that thread violates NO LAWS whatsoever.

It violates no laws, and laws are ALLthat matter, of course . Morality, integrity and honor have no place in your world, do they?

Link

Well After explaining this underhanded idea to him...
...that he could be inserted into the position...The idea though is to prop up a "stealth candidate" to effect the change you want seen...Well the idea is to do this undetected. run a candidate who says nothing about his true purposes,...actually it's basically deception is what I'm proposing...like I said the idea is a "stealth candidate" put forth by a minority who sounds like the majority so they'll elect him and he can thus serve the minority...

Just because something is legal does not make it right, even if you "genuinely believe" it does.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, that is not what I said. I said taxation (without voluntary consent) is theft. What entitles you or anyone else to my property for services I did not choose to solicit? If I choose a service I would like to benefit from, I would gladly pay for it. What I AM opposed to is a person I did not vote for seizing my assets and redistributing them for purposes I do not consent to.

What a great idea "Hello 911 what is your emergency" "oh thank god, yeah My kid's stuck in the house, it's burning to the ground please help!" "ok ma'am, calm down, now do you have your voluntary fire department payment account number on hand"?

Or... "My husband and I both just lost our jobs, we can't afford to feed our children, please help?" "Ok, well lets first verify that you made your voluntary payments towards the food stamp program"

Seriously? You have no idea what services you will need. but fortunately they're available if you ever need them. You're paying for your benefit definitely. We've already covered this...

"Genuine belief" is not enough to make something so, and I never said it did. You are trying to argue in moral relativism, which is a weak position. I contend that it is not the anti-tax crowd who is stealing from you; it is YOU who are stealing from US, via the force of thugs appointed for the task. You genuinely believe that the government can and should make me pay for things I do not want and do not use, much less "benefit" from, all because you're somehow entitled to a pre-determined percentage of my property in order to make society work.

Morality is by very nature relative. This isn't groundbreaking work, ask me if I think two people having sex without being married is immoral, I most certainly believe fornication is immoral, now go quiz everyone else my age and see what answers you get. My point made.

This is not my philosophy, this is the philosophy of every legal system that's ever existed, break open your bible sweetheart (hey if you can call me "sugar" then I feel I can call you one condescending name in return) Read The Gospel According to Mark chapter 12. Specifically instructs one "to render unto caesar what is caesar's" soak that in for awhile. all society has existed by the payment of taxes. No community I'm ever aware of has not had order and taxation.

It violates no laws, and laws are ALLthat matter, of course . Morality, integrity and honor have no place in your world, do they?

Of course integrity and honor have a place in my world, that's why I think it's ok to take some of my excess so that starving families can have something to eat, and so that all offenses against the public order can be investigated and prosecuted, and so that resources are apportioned fairly amongst different groups of people, and so that children can be given a chance at education so they can make something of themselves. And so that you have a chance at being rescued in disasters, and such. You seem to want to services only when they're convienent to you and until then you don't want to pay. society can not exist in that format. If you hate the system here so much you can use the legal and constitutional channels of redress to change it or you can leave.

Link


Just because something is legal does not make it right, even if you "genuinely believe" it does.

What is it now wrong to run candidates who will follow the constitution? please explain that to me....

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

What a great idea "Hello 911 what is your emergency" "oh thank god, yeah My kid's stuck in the house, it's burning to the ground please help!" "ok ma'am, calm down, now do you have your voluntary fire department payment account number on hand"?

Or... "My husband and I both just lost our jobs, we can't afford to feed our children, please help?" "Ok, well lets first verify that you made your voluntary payments towards the food stamp program"

Seriously? You have no idea what services you will need. but fortunately they're available if you ever need them. You're paying for your benefit definitely. We've already covered this...

As I've said before, a RESPONSIBLE person would have measures in place for emergencies such as this. Owning a gun or a fire extinguisher is a small scale example of what I'm talking about. No one knows what services they will need, which is why they are supposed to PREPARE for what they reasonably can, rather than spending every last dime on their fancy smart phone rather than a emergency fund or supplies. If my house were on fire and my kid were inside, I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to risk their life to save my loved ones while being unwilling to risk my own. You might depend on someone else to take care of your problems, but I don't.

Morality is by very nature relative. This isn't groundbreaking work, ask me if I think two people having sex without being married is immoral, I most certainly believe fornication is immoral, now go quiz everyone else my age and see what answers you get. My point made.

Morals are not relative. Murder is morally wrong; theft is morally wrong. How people choose to view and implement their morals may be relative, but the morals themselves are not.

This is not my philosophy, this is the philosophy of every legal system that's ever existed, break open your bible sweetheart (hey if you can call me "sugar" then I feel I can call you one condescending name in return) Read The Gospel According to Mark chapter 12. Specifically instructs one "to render unto caesar what is caesar's" soak that in for awhile. all society has existed by the payment of taxes. No community I'm ever aware of has not had order and taxation.

1. "Sweetheart" doesn't offend me. "Sugar" is used in the same manner as "buddy" or "dude". Not my problem if it knots your knickers.
2. Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's. Okay, so I'll ask AGAIN, what entitles Caesar to MY property??? It's not his, so what legitimizes his seizure of my assets for redistribution against my will?
3. That's hilarious, considering that you posted on page 2 that you can think of several that don't have taxation, and suggest I move there (though you didn't name them.)

Of course integrity and honor have a place in my world,

Not a very high place, if your integrity allows you to advocate for the deception of others.

that's why I think it's ok to take some of my excess so that starving families can have something to eat,

Of your own, consensual choice. I have no problem doing the same. What I have a problem with is someone coming into my home and taking my property (any resource I have) to redistribute without MY consent.

and so that all offenses against the public order can be investigated and prosecuted, and so that resources are apportioned fairly amongst different groups of people, and so that children can be given a chance at education so they can make something of themselves. And so that you have a chance at being rescued in disasters, and such. You seem to want to services only when they're convienent to you and until then you don't want to pay. society can not exist in that format. If you hate the system here so much you can use the legal and constitutional channels of redress to change it or you can leave.

*sigh* You are either deliberately choosing to misinterpret what I've been saying, or you are too dense to understand it. Let me type slowly for you; I. Am. Fine. With. Paying. For. Services. I. May. Need. But. Let. ME. Decide. Which. Services. I. Want. To. Buy. And. Let. ME. Suffer. The. Consequences. If. Something. Goes. Wrong. I promise you I won't be on your doorstep with my hand out, demanding you pay for my mistakes. I can only WISH you would promise the same...

What is it now wrong to run candidates who will follow the constitution? please explain that to me....

Where in the Constitution does it say candidates should be dishonest about their platform in order to get elected and pass the agenda of their supporters? Please explain that to me...