Fiat Empire - Another, earlier version, of Freedom to Fascism

[swskeptic]

I've been tossed a link to this movie called "Fiat Empire" by Matrixx Productions.

Basically there is this kid on Youtube that I've been debating about the legality of the Income Tax. I keep showing him evidence that it is perfectly legal but he refuses to believe it, always referring me to Aaron Russo's movie.

I won't watch that movie and waste my time with it's non-sense so he sent me this link to "Fiat Empire" which is basically another version of Freedom to Fascism by another production company.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531

I would like some help in responding to this kid. He is so dead set in this Income Tax/Federal Reserve non-sense that it is just ridiculous.

I wonder if 99% of that movie is even true?

Any help I get here would be greatly appreciated. I will pass it along to the kid, and hopefully (finally) knock some sense into him. If not, oh well, I'm not going to waste any more of my time with him.

[Gravy]

Have you sent him to this site? (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)

[Gazpacho]

I left some standard tax protester/goldbug rebuttals as comments. Tax protester nonsense is much more dangerous than goldbug nonsense, as it is more likely to land someone in court.

Regarding what little of the video I watched:
* The "gold or silver" limitation in the constitution is very clearly a limitation against the states defining something as legal tender that isn't already.
* Thomas Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention and took no part in its decisions.

A recent book called A Nation of Counterfeiters covers the period of private currency in the US in some detail, and makes it clear why something like the Federal Reserve was needed in the first place.

People who believe this stuff should be encouraged to be as open about their belief as possible. The problem with the internet is that it lets people form closed communities where nonsense is accepted. Encourage this guy to tell his parents, his teachers, his friends, anyone. Eventually he should come across someone who is able to respond, or at least has the honesty to tell him that he's being a fool.

[Gazpacho]

Excellent rundown of how the Federal Reserve came about:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty1.html

Linked from here (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html). I doubt you'll find a better response than that.

The case establishing the constitutionality of paper as a legal tender is here (http://books.google.com/books?id=wd89AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA136&dq=%22legal+tender+cases%22). It spends several pages discussing the theory of the Elastic Clause, then starts to address the case at hand on p. 144.

Briefly, the court held that Congress can't be prevented from exercising its enumerated powers because it lacks legal tender. It has the implied power to define legal tender in such a way that the government can function.

(This is a point that goldbugs, militia types, and other assorted legal cranks consistently miss: The government doesn't exist for the sake of following the strictest imaginable reading of the constitution. It exists to do the public business.)

[stilicho]

We have nutbars in Canada, too, like this one:

http://www.detaxcanada.org/

[Gazpacho]

And if reasoning fails...

Penalties imposed in US Tax Court on frivolous litigants:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=139373,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=121380,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=107987,00.html

Quatloos list of Tax Protestor Dummies:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

Quatloos gallery of tax protest promoters:
http://www.quatlosers.com/

People can believe what they want, but the federal government still expects to be paid. There are many misguided people who think they can defy the tax laws and win in the long run. They don't.

[stilicho]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/paganm/chap3.htm

Ahhh, the "good old days" before central banks and a progressive income tax regime. Frankly, I encourage "tax protestors" that I meet because most of them should be kept away from decent society for a term anyhow.

[Tweeter]

When the government tells you to give them your guns, will you?

[Gazpacho]

When the government tells you to give them your guns, will you?
If it's been settled law for 90 years that I have to do something, I will do it.

[Brainster]

You might point him to the current trial (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/11/snipes-attorney-says-he-was-just-asking-irs-questi/?news-metro) of movie star Wesley Snipes.

An October 2006 federal indictment states that Snipes, along with two men who ran a tax-fraud scheme, filed for $11.4 million in false tax refunds. Snipes and his co-conspirators argued that the U.S. government can only tax residents on income generated in other countries, the indictment states. That claim has been proved false by several courts, according to the indictment.

[stilicho]

When the government tells you to give them your guns, will you?
I don't own any guns and I don't live in the USA. This is a uniquely American "problem". The rest of us in the civilised world wonder what your obsession is.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I won't watch that movie and waste my time with it's non-sense so he sent me this link to "Fiat Empire" which is basically another version of Freedom to Fascism by another production company.

Interesting that you are discarding what your opponent thinks.


You should read Sun Tzu to understand why this is a poor plan of action.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When the government tells you to give them your guns, will you?

Is this not the only way to have the governmnet protect you?

[stilicho]

Interesting that you are discarding what your opponent thinks.


You should read Sun Tzu to understand why this is a poor plan of action.
A fair criticism if we weren't all aware of what the "tax protestor" position was. But we do know what it is. We are also all aware that it is wrong.

There are actually a number of very legal methods to protect and to increase your wealth. The first one, of course, is to either get rid of your credit cards or to pay them off in time. The second one is to pay off the mortgage on your home as quickly as you can.

If you do those two simple things before anything else you will find that you have more money than you know what to do with. I normally ask "tax protestors" I meet whether they meet both of those criteria and normally they do not.

A chacun son gout.

[dudalb]

Look,if you think the Income Tax is a bad idea,and want it repealed,fine. I don't agree with you,but that is a halfway reasonable POV.
But if you argue you can legally refuse to pay it,you are a nutbar.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A fair criticism if we weren't all aware of what the "tax protestor" position was. But we do know what it is. We are also all aware that it is wrong.

You know what this particular "tax protesters" claims are?

There are actually a number of very legal methods to protect and to increase your wealth. The first one, of course, is to either get rid of your credit cards or to pay them off in time. The second one is to pay off the mortgage on your home as quickly as you can.

Should the individual be in an adversarial relationship with governmnet to "protect and increase wealth"?


If you do those two simple things before anything else you will find that you have more money than you know what to do with. I normally ask "tax protestors" I meet whether they meet both of those criteria and normally they do not.

I owe zero on credit cards and am 40% of the way through a 30 year mortgage in four years. Does this count?

A chacun son gout.

This is the nature of America.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Look,if you think the Income Tax is a bad idea,and want it repealed,fine. I don't agree with you,but that is a halfway reasonable POV.
But if you argue you can legally refuse to pay it,you are a nutbar.

It is reasonable to argue that extortion is wrong.

[Arus808]

apples and oranges, jerome, and you know that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

apples and oranges, jerome, and you know that.

Are you certain?

Besides, what would it matter?

[Arus808]

extortion is illegal. tax is not.
if you can't see the difference, then you show that you really do not understand the subject matter.

[Gazpacho]

It is reasonable to argue that extortion is wrong.
You can argue that the income tax is wrong all you want. Arguing that it's not the law, and consistently upheld by everyone charged with deciding what is the law, is foolish.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You can argue that the income tax is wrong all you want. Arguing that it's not the law, and consistently upheld by everyone charged with deciding what is the law, is foolish.

Ahh, you have found the crux!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

extortion is illegal. tax is not.
if you can't see the difference, then you show that you really do not understand the subject matter.

What you state is completely dependent on the definitions of these words in differing venues.

[WildCat]

Are you certain?

Besides, what would it matter?
Coming from a guy who thinks 100% of medical expenses are deductible because he hasn't been caught yet. :rolleyes:

Now, are you going to take the position that Americans aren't really required to pay income taxes?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Coming from a guy who thinks 100% of medical expenses are deductible because he hasn't been caught yet. :rolleyes:

It is all about knowing the laws. You must know this. The proper structure secures your assets.

Now, are you going to take the position that Americans aren't really required to pay income taxes?

That is not the position I have taken. I have taken the position that it is wise to pay extortion.;)

[stilicho]

You know what this particular "tax protesters" claims are?
It's partly semantics and partly a misapprehension of the history of the western world.

Should the individual be in an adversarial relationship with governmnet to "protect and increase wealth"?
Competition for scarce resources is the essence of the civilised world. You likewise have an "adversarial relationship" with your next-door neighbour when you both want to buy the vacant lot across the street, with your local grocer when you want to pay less for a mango than he is willing to sell, and with an unknown entity across the internet when you make spurious claims. This is called "real life". It is, by its nature, a struggle. If you want to include your government as one of those with whom you choose to have an "adversarial relationship" then that's your decision.
I owe zero on credit cards and am 40% of the way through a 30 year mortgage in four years. Does this count?
You are on your way to real wealth. Congratulations. See? "Tax protesting" probably seems a little silly to one of your means.
This is the nature of America.
I am not an American but I understand your peoples' cultural peculiarities.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Competition for scarce resources is the essence of the civilised world. You likewise have an "adversarial relationship" with your next-door neighbour when you both want to buy the vacant lot across the street, with your local grocer when you want to pay less for a mango than he is willing to sell, and with an unknown entity across the internet when you make spurious claims. This is called "real life". It is, by its nature, a struggle. If you want to include your government as one of those with whom you choose to have an "adversarial relationship" then that's your decision.

Maybe because of where I live?: I have never perceived any other person as being in an adversarial relationship with me for resources. Now I have had others perceive me as an adversary to them. Too bad for them as they lose the purpose behind their efforts despite many times my explaining to them the reality of the circumstance.

Many choose to think in the manner which you have described above. This leaves them focused on adversaries instead upon serving others.

Generally in life, if you honestly effort serving others they will by default serve you.

[stilicho]

Maybe because of where I live?: I have never perceived any other person as being in an adversarial relationship with me for resources. Now I have had others perceive me as an adversary to them. Too bad for them as they lose the purpose behind their efforts despite many times my explaining to them the reality of the circumstance.
You hit the nail on the head. Perception colours one's assessment of reality.

[Anti-sophist]

Interesting that you are discarding what your opponent thinks.


I agree it's incorrect to out-of-hand dismiss someone's argument.

It is, however, entirely appropriate to dismiss their claims because virtually every single one of them is provably false. Having gone through the time & effort to demonstrate that provably false nature of every major claim in Freedom to Fascism I don't consider it irrational to refuse to entertain more claims made in the same vein. It doesn't make them wrong. It simply makes them not worth my time.

Tax protester's (legal) arguments have been demonstrated false more times then I care to count. So while the philosophical opposition to the income tax is interesting, it's largely a red herring meant to distract from the provably false legal arguments made by the same group.