Need help with a Tax Protester

[Arus808]

I need help with debunking a tax protester on another site. They are pulling every argument that says that tax is illegal (ie the 16th amendment was never properly ratified because OHIO wasn't a "state), but I need more information concerning hte IRS

The tax protester is using the whole "IRS is a foreign entity" excuse and that we shouldn't believe what they say. Can anyone provide me a quick rundown history of th IRS and how they were "delegated" to handling taxes?

[beachnut]

I need help with debunking a tax protester on another site. They are pulling every argument that says that tax is illegal (ie the 16th amendment was never properly ratified because OHIO wasn't a "state), but I need more information concerning hte IRS

The tax protester is using the whole "IRS is a foreign entity" excuse and that we shouldn't believe what they say. Can anyone provide me a quick rundown history of th IRS and how they were "delegated" to handling taxes?
There is a good web site http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

The rest of the story. If he has money in the bank and is not paying taxes the IRS will find it an take it. If he has a house, one day it will be our house. Funny people. It is not against the law to tell people the tax lies. I can sell books telling you not to pay taxes, and I make money, your stuff goes to the IRS. Funny dumb guys.


http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html it was from tacodaemon http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2674390#post2674390

[Arus808]

Thanks, Ive used that link ,but there is nothing specific to counter the claim that the IRS is a foreign entity (or not even a government agency, etc)

[Redtail]

I need help with debunking a tax protester on another site. They are pulling every argument that says that tax is illegal (ie the 16th amendment was never properly ratified because OHIO wasn't a "state), but I need more information concerning hte IRS

The tax protester is using the whole "IRS is a foreign entity" excuse and that we shouldn't believe what they say. Can anyone provide me a quick rundown history of th IRS and how they were "delegated" to handling taxes?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html

I've used this one. Hope it helps

[beachnut]

Thanks, Ive used that link ,but there is nothing specific to counter the claim that the IRS is a foreign entity (or not even a government agency, etc)
Let him find out the hard way. These guys buy books and DVDs about tax fiction. They beleive it. One day the IRS will get him. Some of these people talk big but are contractors and can hide their income very well. I wish I could pay much more income tax.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html some stuff on income.

[Triterope]

Page from Quatloos dealing with the silly 16th Amendment argument, and Bill Benson, its primary promoter: http://www.quatlosers.com/bill_benson.htm

Cecil Adams' take, which deals more with the Ohio statehood issue: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

IRS.gov itself mentions the 16th Amendment argument as frivolous: see item #6 at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154293,00.html

[uk_dave]

I'm not familiar with all of the arguments regarding US tax protestation (though I find it fascinating that tax protesters also appear to be 'truthers'. Is it because they don't want the 'evil' government to benefit from their tax dollars, or are they just greedy?) but from what I can see on this thread alone it would appear that the argument is less of a moral case against income tax in general, but that they think they've found a loophole which means they can keep more of their own money.

If the basis of the dispute is that Ohio couldn't have ratified the ammendment, then are they proposing that this situation should be put right so that income tax has the correct legal foundation? Or do they just not want to pay any tax at all?

[strathmeyer]

Arguments from common sense:

If the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, why don't they just ratify it again? Or does everyone hate income tax now?

What kind of people think that a government entity is going to decide that the government really can't continue collecting money for its operation like it has been for the past bignum years? Society would crumble! Cats and dogs living together!

[uk_dave]

Political parties normally stand for election with a manifesto of promises. They might claim that they will improve the NHS or Schools or strengthen the country's defences. All of these things come at a price.

People don't like paying tax, but they do want better services.

So far, in the UK at least, no party has been successfully elected on a platform of NO income tax.

[Firestone]

I am as insane as beachnut, really.

I also wish I could pay much more income tax than I do now.
(and income tax in Belgium is higher than in the US)

ETA: apparently the mods removed some posts in this thread. For the record, this post was in reaction to something Liszt wrote, and is now gone. Of course I do not believe beachnut is insane. :)

[Liszt]

do you have any idea how much it cost to legislate Tony Blair´s 3000 new laws?

Seriously, read Private Eye.

And to all you people who want to pay more tax

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7857283533025865530&q=taxman+beatles&total=109&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!

[Liszt]

I am as insane as beachnut, really.

I also wish I could pay much more income tax than I do now.
(and income tax in Belgium is higher than in the US)

Rather than give it to the government, there is 20% unemployment in the city I live in. I regularly give money to the homeless here. They need it.

If you have some spare cash, can I arrange for you to donate? Same goes for Beachnut.

[Liszt]

here you go

http://to-europe.info/node/40

"Homeless charity Crisis is launching a new centre aimed at getting people off the streets and into education."

Please give to this charity.

[Lothian]

I will join the group that wants to pay more tax on my annual salary.





(Even better if it is at a lower rate)

[Liszt]

Liszt, I am not really insane, nor a ****ing ********. Just greedy.

actually, greed is OK.

It is people who would rather give money to governments then to people who actually need it who piss me off.

[Lothian]

Liszt, Talking of ignorance can you help me.

Who pays more tax someone earning £12,000 or someone earning £20,000?

Why would someone paying tax on £12,000 not want to have £20,000 to pay tax on?

Do you never want to earn more money ?

Or have you missed the point ?

[Dave_46]

Liszt, Talking of ignorance can you help me.

Who pays more tax someone earning £12,000 or someone earning £20,000?

Why would someone paying tax on £12,000 not want to have £20,000 to pay tax on?

Do you never want to earn more money ?

Or have you missed the point ?

I think he missed the point.

And it looks as if the reply to Firestone got him suspended.

Dave

[Lothian]

I think he missed the point.

And it looks as if the reply to Firestone got him suspended.

DaveYep, shame, silly thing to get so upset about.

[Firestone]

Well, for the record, I did not report Liszt. But apparently (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84711) two of his posts were in breach of a specific forum rule.

[Lothian]

Well, for the record, I did not report Liszt. But apparently (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84711) two of his posts were in breach of a specific forum rule.Yes, they did. I didn't report him either.

[Checkmite]

I need help with debunking a tax protester on another site. They are pulling every argument that says that tax is illegal (ie the 16th amendment was never properly ratified because OHIO wasn't a "state), but I need more information concerning hte IRS

The tax protester is using the whole "IRS is a foreign entity" excuse and that we shouldn't believe what they say. Can anyone provide me a quick rundown history of th IRS and how they were "delegated" to handling taxes?

Ask him how many times tax protester arguments have won in a court of law.

[Cuddles]

IRS.gov itself mentions the 16th Amendment argument as frivolous

Well they would do, wouldn't they. Although I wonder how that illegal, non-government agency managed to get a .gov domain name. Must be some kind of conspiracy.

[Unsecured Coins]

do you have any idea how much it cost to legislate Tony Blair´s 3000 new laws?

Seriously, read Private Eye.

And to all you people who want to pay more tax

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7857283533025865530&q=taxman+beatles&total=109&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!

The Stevie Ray Vaughn version BURIES that one

[Anti-sophist]

Thanks, Ive used that link ,but there is nothing specific to counter the claim that the IRS is a foreign entity (or not even a government agency, etc)

Indeed. For the same reasons there is nothing specific about the claim that the IRS is made up entirely of pixies who eat only donuts. In other words, it's totally made up claim and it's difficult to specifically counter claims that exist entirely in their imagination.

The "correct" way to debunk this nonsense is to show the IRS tax code sections 7801, 7802, and 7803 which puts enforcement under the Dept. of Treasury and gives the Dept. powers to do so.

Acting with said power, the Dept. of the Treasury created the IRS with Treas. Reg. Section 601.101(a).

Furthermore, the argument has been demolished in the courts.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#IRS

I've yet to meet a tax protester argument that can't be demolished by the evan's FAQ.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Whether taxation is legal or not depends on one's understanding of what law is.

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

[DavidJames]

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.Please list these "Natural" laws. Also include the source as well as the process to resolve disagreements.

[JimBenArm]

Whether taxation is legal or not depends on one's understanding of what law is.

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?
How many people signed the Constitution?

[Anti-sophist]

Whether taxation is legal or not depends on one's understanding of what law is.

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

Your poorly thought out anarchy-type philosophy is semi-interesting but largely irrelevant. You answered your question at the beginning when you said that the law is what the courts say it is. That is true because of the Constitution.

If the Constitution isn't your thing, go somewhere else.

[Unsecured Coins]

39

[uk_dave]

oh cool, so truthy has no right to free speech or habeas corpus....lock 'im up boys!

[TruthSeeker1234]

If the Constitution isn't your thing, go somewhere else.

Logical fallacy - assuming the conclusion. The legitimacy of territorial jurisdiction is the very issue at question. I have no intention of "going somewhere else".

[mailman]

You guys should scrap the constitution and use legal precident instead!

Much easier to change things that way :)

And Americans whinging about taxation makes me laugh...you guys should come over here to England and pay the swinging taxes we pay! Then you can whinge!

Mailman

[Anti-sophist]

Logical fallacy - assuming the conclusion.

I didn't assume anything. I used the word 'IF' for a reason. Please learn to read more carefully.


The legitimacy of territorial jurisdiction is the very issue at question. I have no intention of "going somewhere else".

If you believe the Constitution is illegitimate, you are better off going somewhere else.

The Constitution is "our" social contract, and if you want to be outside of that social contract, violating the implicit trust of others around you (by breaking the law), then they have every right to treat you as such (ie, a criminal).

[Newtons Bit]

Ask him how many times tax protester arguments have won in a court of law.

None, but there has been a minor little revolution that came to a head in 1776 that some people are familiar with.

[DavidJames]

Logical fallacy - assuming the conclusion. The legitimacy of territorial jurisdiction is the very issue at question. I have no intention of "going somewhere else".Please list these "Natural" laws. Also include the source as well as the process to resolve disagreements.

[NobbyNobbs]

(ie the 16th amendment was never properly ratified because OHIO wasn't a "state),


Point out that Pennsylvania, where I live, is a Commonwealth. It is not, and has never been, a "state". Does that mean that none of the amendments were ratified?


Whether taxation is legal or not depends on one's understanding of what law is.

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

Since you are implying that you do not feel bound by the Constitution, your most proper recourse is to renounce your citizenship.

Citizenship, by its very definition, is an implied agreement with the rules and laws of the country of which you are a citizen. If you do not agree with those rules and laws, your choices are:

1) Work within them to change them
2) Join the citizenship of a country whose rules and laws you agree with
3) Ignore them and suffer the consequences

(I'd recommend either 1 or 2)

[NobbyNobbs]

Double post

[Sparky]

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

Do you intend to deny or refute the Bill of Rights now? This should be interesting...

[uk_dave]

Reminds me of the joker who turned up here to claim that he didn't have to pay tax because he wasn't a 'person', or some such nonsense.

Well, if you're going to set yourself apart from the rest of society, then you have to be prepared for society to treat you differently. If you're not a 'person' then perhaps you're a 'beast of burden' and can be treated as such.

Likewise, if you renounce the constitution and laws of the country in which you live, neither should you then be protected by that constitution and those laws.

[JimBenArm]

39
I wanted him to answer, but this will do. So, by his logic, only 39 people ever were bound by the Constitution. The rest of the stuff, ratifiying it, the Bill of Rights, other ammendments, were meaningless.

Uhm, yeah. Okay then.

[Anti-sophist]

Reminds me of the joker who turned up here to claim that he didn't have to pay tax because he wasn't a 'person', or some such nonsense.


The "infinite definitions" game is common among tax protesters. They insist that every word must be precisely defined, neglected the realize that words must be defined in terms of other words, which then, by their logic, must be defined.. forever.

They do the same thing with 'income', which is part of the definition of 'what' is taxed, as opposed to 'person' which is part of the definition of 'who' is taxed.

[Arus808]

Heres another argument being used:



Thus, Congress' legislative jurisdiction is limited to their territories like D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands and other insular possessions.Or any federal enclave within a union state(not to exceed ten miles). That's why each state has their own legislature, Judiciary and Executive. In other words if Congress passed a law banning abortion, or smoking it would only apply to those areas outlined above. Their Article 1 powers are not to exceed those 18 enumerations.

Can anyone give me a sensible debunk to this claim?

[Anti-sophist]

Heres another argument being used:



Can anyone give me a sensible debunk to this claim?

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#federalareas

His claim is completely wrong and is a misreading. He thinks "exclusive" means something different then what it actually means.



“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. ...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

[TruthSeeker1234]

I didn't assume anything. I used the word 'IF' for a reason. Please learn to read more carefully.



If you believe the Constitution is illegitimate, you are better off going somewhere else.

The Constitution is "our" social contract, and if you want to be outside of that social contract, violating the implicit trust of others around you (by breaking the law), then they have every right to treat you as such (ie, a criminal).

I beg your pardon. You most certainly did employ a logical fallacy. Your construction was "If x then y". Your conditional rests upon an assumed premise. One cannot conclude that those who do not endorse the Constitution should leave a geographical area, unless one assumes the legitimacy of a territorial jurisdiction. By what authority do you ask me to leave? Answer: The Constitution. You've assumed the legitimacy of the Constitution, the very issue in question.

[cloudshipsrule]

You've assumed the legitimacy of the Constitution, the very issue in question.

You'll be only one of about 3 people on this entire board who doubt the legitimacy of the Constitution. In a democracy, that makes you WRONG.

[Triterope]

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law.

The legitimacy of territorial jurisdiction is the very issue at question.

This sort of philosophical nonsense is where tax protestor arguments usually end up.

They start by asking what law requires them to pay taxes. You show them the law requiring them to pay taxes; they question the legitimacy of the law.

They go to court; the court says the law means what it says; they question the legitimacy of the court.

They go to another court; that court rules that the right of courts to make binding judgement is part of the U.S. Constitution; they question the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution.

And so on, until what began as a semi-reasonable question about taxing authority has morphed into a ludicrous conspiracy theory alleging that the United States is an illegitimate sub-corporation of the British Crown, or that the Federal Reserve is a secret European Illuminati bank, or some gibberish about super-magical "natural law" that overrules all those silly written-down laws and conveniently grants them whatever rights they want to have -- but don't you dare infringe on their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom from imprisonment, right to fair trial, etc.

Tax protestors begin with the desired conclusion, and search for anything that supports it. If one angle fails, they'll inevitably find another. They're not noble patriots in search of the truth as they claim to be, but rather, shysters looking for anything that supports their self-serving delusions.

[TriangleMan]

If you do not agree with those rules and laws, your choices are:

1) Work within them to change them
2) Join the citizenship of a country whose rules and laws you agree with
3) Ignore them and suffer the consequences


I think even then it is difficult to renounce your citizenship to get away from US taxes but I'm not sure on the fine details. And US citizens have to file tax returns to the IRS regardless of where they live in the world!

US Citizenship: membership has its privilages, but you gotta play by the rules.

[Anti-sophist]

I beg your pardon. You most certainly did employ a logical fallacy. Your construction was "If x then y". Your conditional rests upon an assumed premise.

This is not an assumption. Please learn logic before trying to teach it. No assumptions were made.


One cannot conclude that those who do not endorse the Constitution should leave a geographical area, unless one assumes the legitimacy of a territorial jurisdiction. By what authority do you ask me to leave? Answer: The Constitution. You've assumed the legitimacy of the Constitution, the very issue in question.This is complete and total nonsense and an example of terrible reading comprehension on your part. I will not respond to your strawman and I repeat my advice that you learn to read more carefully.

[beachnut]

Whether taxation is legal or not depends on one's understanding of what law is.

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution. Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?
Based on the fact you believe in beam weapons that vaporized steel, and no planes because you messed up an analysis of video frames, why would anyone expect your analysis of the constitution to be anything but bogus?

[uk_dave]

Based on the fact you believe in beam weapons that vaporized steel, and no planes because you messed up an analysis of video frames, why would anyone expect your analysis of the constitution to be anything but bogus?

'truthers' can be experts in any damn field they set their 'common sense' upon....

...it says so in the 'truther constitution'

[Timothy]

Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

Since when did you assume this absurd notion that you are "free"? Whether you like it or not, as a member of humanity, society, and national, state, and local jurisdictions of government you are bound in certain aspects of your life to do what the rest of us tell you to do. Get enough friends to agree with you and you can change the status quo from either inside or outside the system. Until then, we'll be happy to put you in jail and slap you around if you don't obey.

Just 'cause you wish it weren't so don't make it so.

Happy hunting for partners in your fantasy, and don't drop the soap!

[NobbyNobbs]

I love how these tax protestors think they aren't subject to the same rules as the rest of us, yet they have no problem driving on interstate highways, sending their kids to public schools, getting innoculations that were approved by the FDA......

[Skibum]

getting innoculations that were approved by the FDA

I wouldn't bring up the subject of innoculations amongst the truther crowd.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I think even then it is difficult to renounce your citizenship to get away from US taxes but I'm not sure on the fine details. And US citizens have to file tax returns to the IRS regardless of where they live in the world!

US Citizenship: membership has its privilages, but you gotta play by the rules.

What if I don't want to be a citizen, but I still want to live here?

[Sparky]

What if I don't want to be a citizen, but I still want to live here?

Are you now taking advantage of the benefits of living in this society? If your answer is yes, it's also your responsibility to help pay for those benefits.

[Anti-sophist]

What if I don't want to be a citizen, but I still want to live here?

You can't. We, your neighbors, pay for alot of things as a group to provide services for those who live "here". By living "here", you are benefiting from these services, therefore you are required to abide by our rules. Our claim to "here" is largely due to the tyranny of the majority, and that majority's social contract with itself.

If you refuse, we will remove you. If you don't like that, complain. Keep in mind, however, that since you are outside of our social contract, all of the built-in mechanisms we have for such complaints and handling them in the most mutually agreeable manner are unavailable to you.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is not an assumption. Please learn logic before trying to teach it. No assumptions were made.

This is complete and total nonsense and an example of terrible reading comprehension on your part. I will not respond to your strawman and I repeat my advice that you learn to read more carefully.

Anti Soph, you have not pointed out any error in what I say, you simply dismiss it. I know logic, and I read you correctly.

Logically, either you do or do not assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, correct? Is there a third option I am missing?

If you do not assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, then there is no basis for taxation.

If you do assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you have assumed the conclusion.

Logically, if you want to show the legality of taxation, you must show the legitimacy of the Constitution. I can save you the time. What "legitimizes" the Constitution is force. If I don't obey you, you will harm me. That is why I pay my taxes, and that is the only reason I pay my taxes, or obey any other part of your ghastly labyrinth of legislated law. Fear.

And boy do I pay taxes.

[uk_dave]

Why can't the tax 'truthers' ever be honest about their motives......

...no scrub that, 'truthers' are never honest about their motives, it comes with the territory.

Tax 'truthers' just want to hold on to their hard earned and resent it being used for things (and people) they don't care about.

They don't want socialised medicine because the tax payer will have to pay for it, which means they will be paying for someone elses healthcare (not their own, of course, because they live pure and responsible lives and would never take a chance with their own health, and anyway they want a private hospital room away from the plebs) someone who might not be the sort of person they would normally give money to. Those people might be drug users or alcaholics or maybe overweight....or maybe black.

Tax 'truthers' want to pick and choose who benefits from their charity....and those people had damn well better be grateful because it's not a right it's a benevolence which can easily be ended.

Tax 'truthers' don't protest to regularise the situation or improve it. They protest because they don't want a slice of their cake going to fund the police who only ever pull them over for speeding and why should there be a law about how fast they can drive their car anyway?

Most people pass the psychological disposition to be like a tax 'truther' by around the age of 10 when they realise that actually they aren't the centre of the universe after all and there is a big, scary world out there just waiting to gobble them up.

[Anti-sophist]

Logically, either you do or do not assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, correct? Is there a third option I am missing?


The option that such an assumption isn't necessary to the point being made?

For instance, the claim that 1+1=2 doesn't require either assumption, does it?


Logically, if you want to show the legality of taxation, you must show the legitimacy of the Constitution. I can save you the time. What "legitimizes" the Constitution is force. If I don't obey you, you will harm me. That is why I pay my taxes, and that is the only reason I pay my taxes, or obey any other part of your ghastly labyrinth of legislated law. Fear. '

Your argument is innane, childish, and very poorly thought out. This simple issue has been settled several centuries ago from a philosophical standpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

The gathering of like-minded people who hold the same virtues is the basis of civilization. This social contract is the constitution. Rejecting this social contract makes you an outcast and an outsider. By benefitting from the benefits of our contract (which you do), and rejecting it, you are violating our social trust and our social contract. Therefore, you are _not_ an innocent outsider, but instead an active detractor and violator of it.

We require you to uphold your end of contract because you benefit from -our- upholding of it. That makes you a beneficiary, even unwilling, and that makes you liable under its terms.

If you do not want to be a part of our social contract, you need to not benefit from it. The -only- way you can do this is to leave. Moving out into the woods of Montana and cutting yourself off completely still is insufficient because there is still advantage being gained by you at our expense.. namely "defense".

[DavidJames]

What if I don't want to be a citizen, but I still want to live here?
What if you tell us what the natural rights are, their source and how we resolve disagreements regarding what they mean?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are you now taking advantage of the benefits of living in this society? If your answer is yes, it's also your responsibility to help pay for those benefits.

You confuse society with government. The two are not the same at all. Logically, we know that society must pre-exist government. Government cannot exist but for coerced taxation. There must first be a productive functioning society in existence for a government to then come into existence and begin taxing.

The market provides all we need to insure that those who "take advantage of the benefits" of society also "help pay for those benefits". People "give back" to society by producing goods and services that are valued. We figure out which goods and services society values by letting the market work, not by empowering a privileged class with the license to steal.

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and is no more beneficial to society than any other kind of theft.

[SpitfireIX]

[. . .]

Cecil Adams' take, which deals more with the Ohio statehood issue: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

[. . .]



To expound on Cecil's comments about the Ohio issue:

First, the fact that Congress "admitted" Ohio to the Union in 1953 in no way creates any sort of presumption that Ohio wasn't a state before 1953. Married couples sometimes renew their wedding vows; this does not create a presumption that their previous marriages were somehow invalid. Second, Congress clearly intended to admit Ohio in 1803; as Cecil points out, to claim that Ohio was not properly admitted due to a "clerical error" would be absurd. Among the numerous major problems created, this would call into question the results of the 1876 and 1916 Presidential elections, in which Ohio's electoral votes were crucial to the winners' margins of victory.

However, even granting for the sake of argument that Ohio was not a state before 1953, the Sixteenth Amendment still was properly ratified. First, the claim that William Howard Taft somehow would not have been a natural-born US citizen, and thus ineligible to serve as President, is utterly preposterous. If Ohio was not a state during the 19th Century, then it was still a US territory, and anyone born therein who was otherwise eligible would have been a US citizen. Further, even if that were not the case, Taft's father was an American citizen, born in Vermont, and the citizenship law (http://www.aca.ch/hisuscit.htm) in effect at the time of Taft's birth stated, "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States . . ."

Even if all of the above points fail, however, the Sixteenth Amendment still was properly ratified. Several more states than the 36 required for a three-fourths super-majority ratified, and even if Taft somehow was not "really" President, his "illegitimately" appointed Secretary of State was still capable of legally declaring the amendment ratified. The reason for this is that the precedent had already been set that laws and acts of illegitimate governments that were both needful and otherwise constitutional should be allowed to stand. This principle derives from the American Civil War, after which all the the laws and acts of the governments of the "seceded" states that had not had the purpose of directly supporting the rebellion were not voided.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Notice how Anti-Soph has completely dodged the issue. He now says that the Constitution is irrelevant to taxation. I'll use that against you later, I'm sure.

Challenge: Give me the general case for what constitutes a social contract. Under what specific circumstances can a group of people claim a binding contract on other people who have had no participation in drafting the contract?

[Sparky]

You confuse society with government. The two are not the same at all. Logically, we know that society must pre-exist government. Government cannot exist but for coerced taxation. There must first be a productive functioning society in existence for a government to then come into existence and begin taxing.

The market provides all we need to insure that those who "take advantage of the benefits" of society also "help pay for those benefits". People "give back" to society by producing goods and services that are valued. We figure out which goods and services society values by letting the market work, not by empowering a privileged class with the license to steal.

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and is no more beneficial to society than any other kind of theft.

I shall re-phrase. Are you presently benefitting from the publicly-funded advantages of living within this constitutional democracy?

[Anti-sophist]

Notice how Anti-Soph has completely dodged the issue. He now says that the Constitution is irrelevant to taxation. I'll use that against you later, I'm sure.

Laughable strawman. Please learn to read more carefully. I'll tell you the same thing, "later", when you bring it up, additionally.


Challenge: Give me the general case for what constitutes a social contract. Under what specific circumstances can a group of people claim a binding contract on other people who have had no participation in drafting the contract?In all cases of every civilization that has ever existed. As far as I know, no society has ever required unanimous approval of every tenant of everyone being governed.

What I find most interesting is the fact that you neglect to deal with the most important issue. You are -stealing- from me by violating the social contract and at the same time benefiting from it. Furthermore, given that you are stealing from me, and that none of the normal avenues of conflict resolution are available to me (since none of the constructs of the society are available), what options am I left with?

[DavidJames]

Notice how Anti-Soph has completely dodged the issue.Speaking of dodging the issue, how about answering my questions about the natural laws.

[Alt+F4]

The tax protester is using the whole "IRS is a foreign entity" excuse and that we shouldn't believe what they say. Can anyone provide me a quick rundown history of th IRS and how they were "delegated" to handling taxes?

I love Quatloos: http://www.quatloos.com/


There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971), "[w]e bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under § 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.

Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the Internal Revenue Service was created. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service is a body established by "positive law" because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.

Relevant Case Law:
Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F. Supp. 471 (D. Nev. 1995) - the court described Salman's contention that the Internal Revenue Service is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice.

Young v. I.R.S., 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984) - the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young's claim that the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.

[Arus808]

I shall re-phrase. Are you presently benefitting from the publicly-funded advantages of living within this constitutional democracy?


remember, you have to define what is publicly funded to the ignorant

ACe, if you step out your door of your house and onto the sidewalk in front of your home, you are now on a publicly funded thoroughfare.

If you are not a contributing member, please

1) do not walk on our sidewalks
2) do not drive your car on our streets, highways and freeways
3) do not ever go to a public park or a public beach
4) do not send your kids to public schools or any private/charter schools that get funding from public funds
5) do not step into a public library ever again ; use their computers for your selfish needs.
6) do not set foot or swim in public or community pools
7) do not play on public basket ball cours, tennis courts, or tracks
8) do not ever throw your rubbish away; take it to the dump yourself (oh wait, you need to use your car on public roads in order to do that).


The list is endless. Basically, you'd be sequestered to your own basement of your house, without electricity and plumbing.

[Anti-sophist]

1) do not walk on our sidewalks
2) do not drive your car on our streets, highways and freeways
3) do not ever go to a public park or a public beach
4) do not send your kids to public schools or any private/charter schools that get funding from public funds
5) do not step into a public library ever again ; use their computers for your selfish needs.
6) do not set foot or swim in public or community pools
7) do not play on public basket ball cours, tennis courts, or tracks
8) do not ever throw your rubbish away; take it to the dump yourself (oh wait, you need to use your car on public roads in order to do that).


The list is endless. Basically, you'd be sequestered to your own basement of your house, without electricity and plumbing.

It goes far deeper then this. You got to the good part at the end where he cannot have electricity or plumbing. He cannot have a car, or any other such outside devices. He cannot buy or eat our food. All of things cost what they cost -because- of our society's developed infrastructure.

He likely cannot even have his own home, because it's very likely it was built using the societal resources (unless he built it himself, obviously, by hand, with tools he himself constructed).

It foes further deeper. He also cannot live inside the United States because of the protection he is afforded from outside invasion by us.

[Sparky]

remember, you have to define what is publicly funded to the ignorant

ACe, if you step out your door of your house and onto the sidewalk in front of your home, you are now on a publicly funded thoroughfare.

If you are not a contributing member, please

1) do not walk on our sidewalks
2) do not drive your car on our streets, highways and freeways
3) do not ever go to a public park or a public beach
4) do not send your kids to public schools or any private/charter schools that get funding from public funds
5) do not step into a public library ever again ; use their computers for your selfish needs.
6) do not set foot or swim in public or community pools
7) do not play on public basket ball cours, tennis courts, or tracks
8) do not ever throw your rubbish away; take it to the dump yourself (oh wait, you need to use your car on public roads in order to do that).


The list is endless. Basically, you'd be sequestered to your own basement of your house, without electricity and plumbing.


You forgot about police protection, fire and paramedic services, low cost housing, hospital emergency rooms that receive federal funds (all of them)...

[Arus808]

^^ Sophist and Sparky have added as well. Basically Ace, if you want to live in the US, there are societal obligations that you are required to contribute to.

[sleahead]

Ace, if I steal all your tunes, promise me that you will not drag me into court under copyright laws authorised by the US Constitution. If I am very successful at this, your income will be greatly reduced and hence your tax bill will be much lower.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. You must pay taxes to our treasury. We will provide you with benefits. Everyone may now freely download a new government-produced song every month. Also, everyone may freely download and read a new educational essay, drafted by the government, and very beneficial.

Whether you personally consider the songs and essays beneficial or annoying does not matter. Whether you consider the price to be fair or a ripoff does not matter. You will pay your taxes and enjoy your benefits. If you don't like this arrangement, you are free to leave the northern hemisphere.

Can someone please explain to me the philosophical difference between this and the current existing "social contract"?

Thank You.

[Swing Dangler]

Why do people who refuse to pay taxes treated like criminals considering this definition on the IRS website:


voluntary compliance
A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time.
Source: IRS (http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/tools_glossary.jsp)

[tacodaemon]

^^ Yeah, I think it should be convincing to the average person that tax protesters' arguments are of no practical value if they eventually rely on metaphysical arguments about the legitimacy of the sovereign state. The Gewaltmonopol des Staates might be an interesting thing to philosophize about but I'm sure not going to base a court defense on it.

[Anti-sophist]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. You must pay taxes to our treasury. We will provide you with benefits. Everyone may now freely download a new government-produced song every month. Also, everyone may freely download and read a new educational essay, drafted by the government, and very beneficial.

Whether you personally consider the songs and essays beneficial or annoying does not matter. Whether you consider the price to be fair or a ripoff does not matter. You will pay your taxes and enjoy your benefits. If you don't like this arrangement, you are free to leave the northern hemisphere.

Can someone please explain to me the philosophical difference between this and the current existing "social contract"?

Thank You.

This is a great argument. I had a similar idea in middle school when I first grappled with this concept. True story.

[Anti-sophist]

Why do people who refuse to pay taxes treated like criminals considering this definition on the IRS website:



Source: IRS (http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/tools_glossary.jsp)

Because not paying taxes is a criminal offense?

Voluntary compliance does not mean tax liability is voluntary.

[tacodaemon]

This is a great argument. I had a similar idea in middle school when I first grappled with this concept. True story.


I find myself reliving all those late-night discussions in Marv and Julian's haze-filled dorm room freshman year.

[Metullus]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. You must pay taxes to our treasury. We will provide you with benefits. Everyone may now freely download a new government-produced song every month. Also, everyone may freely download and read a new educational essay, drafted by the government, and very beneficial.

Whether you personally consider the songs and essays beneficial or annoying does not matter. Whether you consider the price to be fair or a ripoff does not matter. You will pay your taxes and enjoy your benefits. If you don't like this arrangement, you are free to leave the northern hemisphere.

Can someone please explain to me the philosophical difference between this and the current existing "social contract"?

Thank You.Well, for one thing you cannot enforce it.

[Swing Dangler]

Because not paying taxes is a criminal offense?

Voluntary compliance does not mean tax liability is voluntary.

I think your missing the joke...voluntary compliance. How can it be voluntary if I have to comply? Why do I have to comply if its voluntary?

tax liability (or total tax bill)
The amount of tax that must be paid. Taxpayers meet (or pay) their federal income tax liability through withholding, estimated tax payments, and payments made with the tax forms they file with the government.

tax payer
Undefined on the IRS website. LOL!

I volunteer not to pay taxes, so liability shouldn't apply to me. Liability should apply to those who volunteer.

And imagine what would happen to fiscal responsibility if people didn't pay Federal Taxes. I'm not an expert but I bet that budget would be balanced quicker than the IRS can raid your house!

[tacodaemon]

I think your missing the joke...voluntary compliance. How can it be voluntary if I have to comply? Why do I have to comply if its voluntary?


Yeah, it's kind of an amusing choice of words. Obviously they're going for a different sense of voluntary, the one that has to do with doing it on your own initiative rather than the Man having to send someone round your house every year to shake you upside down until enough shillings fall out of your pockets.

[SpitfireIX]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. You must pay taxes to our treasury. We will provide you with benefits. <snip> You will pay your taxes and enjoy your benefits. If you don't like this arrangement, you are free to leave the northern hemisphere.

Can someone please explain to me the philosophical difference between this and the current existing "social contract"?

Thank You.


Trivially simple. 1) The 48 of you have not been duly chosen by assemblies of duly elected representatives of the people, and your "constitution" has not been, and will not be, ratified by majorities of those assemblies. 2) Your constitution presumably does not provide for a majority of the people to choose their leaders and representatives, nor presumably mechanisms for the people's representatives to change the laws, or to change the Constitution itself.

[Madalch]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. ...
Can someone please explain to me the philosophical difference between this and the current existing "social contract"?

The current one has a lot more popular support than yours does.

[TruthSeeker1234]

remember, you have to define what is publicly funded to the ignorant

ACe, if you step out your door of your house and onto the sidewalk in front of your home, you are now on a publicly funded thoroughfare.

If you are not a contributing member, please

1) do not walk on our sidewalks
2) do not drive your car on our streets, highways and freeways
3) do not ever go to a public park or a public beach
4) do not send your kids to public schools or any private/charter schools that get funding from public funds
5) do not step into a public library ever again ; use their computers for your selfish needs.
6) do not set foot or swim in public or community pools
7) do not play on public basket ball cours, tennis courts, or tracks
8) do not ever throw your rubbish away; take it to the dump yourself (oh wait, you need to use your car on public roads in order to do that).


The list is endless. Basically, you'd be sequestered to your own basement of your house, without electricity and plumbing.



All stolen goods, Arus.

[Anti-sophist]

I think your missing the joke...voluntary compliance. How can it be voluntary if I have to comply? Why do I have to comply if its voluntary?

Well... because it's an equivocation fallacy. There is a difference between "mandatory compliance" and "voluntary compliance". When they put you in handcuffs and throw you in jail, that's mandatory compliance. When they tell you to not to speed, and hope that you comply, that is voluntary. If they required all cars be equipped with speed limiters, that'd be mandatory compliance.

Breaking the speed limit is still a crime, even though compliance is voluntary.

Mandatory compliance with the income tax would mean on April 15th, the government would withdraw the amount of money you owe from your account.


I volunteer not to pay taxes, so liability shouldn't apply to me. Nowhere are you given the option to be liable for taxes just like nowhere are you given the option to be required to stay below the speed limit. You are lawfully required to stay below the speed limit just like you are lawfully required to pay taxes.


Liability should apply to those who volunteer.
That's not what the law says. If you believe that, you should write your Congressman.

[Swing Dangler]

You are -stealing- from me by violating the social contract and at the same time benefiting from it. Furthermore, given that you are stealing from me, and that none of the normal avenues of conflict resolution are available to me (since none of the constructs of the society are available), what options am I left with?

Care to explain how he is stealing from you?


Even if all of the above points fail, however, the Sixteenth Amendment still was properly ratified.

This is new. You can prove that all the existing states at the time followed their individual state laws in order to ratify an amendment of the Federal Constitution?

Bill Benson is on trial for what amounts to "anti government speech" in his examination of the illegal 16th amendment.

In summary, Bill Benson, a former tax investigator himself, compiled documentary proof that US Secretary of State Philander Knox lied to the US Congress when he announced that the 16th Amendment was "in effect" (Knox pointedly avoided using the word 'ratified' in his letter of transmittal to Congress).

For example, Knox claimed Kentucky voted for ratification, but state records show that Kentucky voted the amendment down, 22 to 9.

Knox claimed California ratified the Amendment, but there is no record of a vote in the California legislative archives.

Knox claimed Minnesota ratified the 16th amendment, but there is no evidence that Minnesota ever responded to the bill, one way or the other.

The US Government, which cites the 16th Amendment as authority to dip into your pocket, had taken Bill Benson to court for "falsely" claiming that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. Yet the same courts refuse to allow Benson to produce the certified state records (and the memorandums of Knox's own Solicitor General) that support his theory. This is another classic case of the judges declaring what is truth and punishing those who refuse to believe.


There is a reason some of our earliest leaders were opposed to a central bank.

[Arus808]

All stolen goods, Arus.
explain how its "stolen" goods

please provide proof.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The current one has a lot more popular support than yours does.

First, that's an assumption, because the Constitution has never ever been put to a vote. But let's assume you're right.

Are you suggesting that if 51% of the people are in favor of "x", then "x" is OK? I believe U.S. slavery enjoyed majority support in the southern states. Did that make it right?

Methinks we need a system of ethics which has the following properties:

1. Universality (applies the same to all individuals).
2. Viability (if followed will result in peace and prosperity for humans, not annihilation)

[Arus808]

Are you suggesting that if 51% of the people are in favor of "x", then "x" is OK? I believe U.S. slavery enjoyed majority support in the southern states. Did that make it right?

sorry, but for anything to be considered, you need a 3/4ths vote. 51% isn't enough.

[SpitfireIX]

[ . . . ]

tax payer
Undefined on the IRS website. LOL!


Old tax protester dodge. As the courts have held, it means what a reasonable person would construe it to mean in everyday usage.

I volunteer not to pay taxes, so liability shouldn't apply to me. Liability should apply to those who volunteer.


No one asked for volunteers not to pay taxes. Also, "voluntary" and "volunteer" have slightly different connotations.


And imagine what would happen to fiscal responsibility if people didn't pay Federal Taxes. I'm not an expert but I bet that budget would be balanced quicker than the IRS can raid your house!


Non sequitur. Peoples' failure to pay taxes would increase the budget deficit, not reduce it.

[Minadin]

First, that's an assumption, because the Constitution has never ever been put to a vote. But let's assume you're right.

Yes, let's assume that he is, because the constitution had to be ratified by each state, by a vote of the people, in addition to the agreement of their selected representives at the Constitutional Convention. Writing and ratifying the Constitution was an extremely lengthy proccess. It wasn't fully put into place until 1789, more than a decade after the start of the Revolutionary War, and fully 3 years after it was originally proposed. The approval of three-quarters of the states were needed to ratify it. The Bill of Rights wasn't added until 1791, even though it was proposed in 1788, because it too went to a vote in each state. Each subsequent ammendment to the constitution undergoes a similar ratification process today.

You can actually see votes for and against ratification of the constitution for each state, along with the date that they approved it (all 13 did, btw) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution

It was a 10 second wikipedia search.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Aurs' comment was that current social contract is more popular. The Constitution has never been put to a popular vote. I thought it was obvious what I meant.

We have to assume that the current "social contract" and the current "Constitution" enjoy popular support, because it has never, ever, been put to a popular vote.

[twinstead]

Aurs' comment was that current social contract is more popular. The Constitution has never been put to a popular vote. I thought it was obvious what I meant.

We have to assume that the current "social contract" and the current "Constitution" enjoy popular support, because it has never, ever, been put to a popular vote.

Like so many of your other ideologically-based beliefs, you think that this fact somehow invalidates the Constitution.

This is the way the government was set up. If you think that the Constitution and all subsequent amendments should be ratified by popular vote, then you should be rallying for change of the laws to make that happen, not using it as an excuse to ignore parts of the Constitution you don't happen to agree with.

[Arus808]

Aurs' comment was that current social contract is more popular. The Constitution has never been put to a popular vote. I thought it was obvious what I meant.

Um yes it has .. ALL 13 states ratified the Constitution. How many states existed in 1790?

Ace, when was the last time you took a US history class?

We have to assume that the current "social contract" and the current "Constitution" enjoy popular support, because it has never, ever, been put to a popular vote.


Ace, you are showing that you do not know or understand US History. This is taught to 3rd graders.

[twinstead]

Ace, you are showing that you do not know or understand US History. This is taught to 3rd graders.

Was the ratification an electoral college type vote or an actual popular vote?

[Bob Klase]

I and 47 of my friends have just ratified a new Constitution. Everyone in the northern hemisphere is now a citizen of the new country. You must pay taxes to our treasury. We will provide you with benefits. Everyone may now freely download a new government-produced song every month. Also, everyone may freely download and read a new educational essay, drafted by the government, and very beneficial.

That was short lived. I and 56 of my friends have just ratified a newer constitution. Your government has been overthrown. We will be there tomorrow to confiscate your songs, essays and any other material we deemed in opposition to our rule. Capitulate or die.

[Arus808]

Was the ratification an electoral college type vote or an actual popular vote?

dont think it matters. It was ratified by the members of Congress.

[twinstead]

dont think it matters. It was ratified by the members of Congress.

It does to truthydude. It appears that if it wasn't voted on by everybody in every state over voting age in the original 13 colonies, and if every subsequent amendment wasn't voted on by everybody of voting age in the US then it wasn't ratified by popular vote and thus not really ratified.

That means that he can pick and choose what amendments he wants to be bound to. Quite convenient, actually.

[fezzic]

Was the ratification an electoral college type vote or an actual popular vote?

The Constitution was ratified by the States by whatever means they chose to use to make that determination which probably meant by the legislative bodies of the States. Again looking at Wiki, it seems there may have been conventions held to vote on ratification. I am not a historian.

(IIRC) It should be remembered that the Constitution is an agreement between the States. The President, for instance, is elected by the States via the Electoral College. If the States adopted apportioning the electoral votes according the how the precincts associated with each vote were carried instead of on a State-wide basis of winner take all, then the Electoral College might parallel the popular vote more closely (but not necessarily due to granularity), but that is up to each State to decide.

Ratification of amendments is by 3/4 of the States not 3/4 of the voting population.



In response to Arus's comment: According to Wiki the Congress of the Confederation approved the Constitution but (in violation of article 13 of the Confederation) chose to submit it to the States for ratification.

Once the 9th State ratified the Constitution, the process started to implement it.

[Belz...]

The operating standard currently in force is that whatever politicians and courts say is the law, is the law.

It's always been that way. If you don't like the law, elect someone who'll change it, or present yourself as that someone.

If you don't pay your taxes, you will be punished, have no doubt about this. This "modern" standard is, of course, the ancient barbaric standard. The ruler makes the rules, and can change them at will (legislation), and apply them as he sees fit.

In this case the ruler being the voters.

A rebellion against this model took place over a thousand years or so, and resulted in the concept of natural law. Natural law is to be discovered and understood, but not changed. One would not seek to "legislate" natural law any more than one would seek to legislate the law of gravity.

What the hell are you talking about now, Ace ? Natural laws are not "laws". They are processes. The "laws" are just our description of it, and it's not a very good term, actually.

Trying to figure out if taxation is "Constitutional" assumes the legitimacy of the Constitution. I never signed the Constitution.

No, but I'm sure you're very happy to live in a country that has one.

Since when can free people be bound by a contract they never agreed to?

Anarchy leads nowhere.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nobody has answered my question about popular support for slavery. It makes for an instructive case.

To answer some questions from above, I emphatically do NOT support the notion that majority vote legitimizes anything. If 51% (or 75%) of the people voted to gouge the eyeballs out of the remaining people for sheer idle amusement, that would NOT make it legitimate. Slavery was illegitimate, despite enjoying popular support.

Having said that, we must assume that the Constitution and your beloved "social contract" enjoy popular support, because it has never been put to a vote of the people. The "states" that ratified the Constitution were similarly created by fiat, and themselves never put to any sort of popular vote.

I reject the notion that majorities legitimize, but even accepting it for the sake of argument, there is no reason to think that the Constitution, or the states that ratified ever had anything resembling popular support.

To repeat, to sort out what is and is not ethical, we need a rational system of natural law.

[Belz...]

I beg your pardon. You most certainly did employ a logical fallacy. Your construction was "If x then y". Your conditional rests upon an assumed premise.

No, it didn't. You need to brush up on your logic. Otherwise I'll have to go all semantic on the word "should".

What if I don't want to be a citizen, but I still want to live here?

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If you do not assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, then there is no basis for taxation.

If you do assume the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you have assumed the conclusion.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. Because your "not assume" is actually "assume it is not legitimate" but worded differently. In that case you ALSO assume the conclusion.

What "legitimizes" the Constitution is force.

No argument, here. Same for all laws, actually, and it has to be. What ELSE could possibly enforce it ?

That is why I pay my taxes, and that is the only reason I pay my taxes, or obey any other part of your ghastly labyrinth of legislated law. Fear.

Well, you're a very sorry human being, Ace. I pay my taxes because I know they provide useful and often necessary services to people, including myself. When I go to a hospital up here in Canada, I expect to be treated, free of charge, and if I didn't have income to pay, many people couldn't afford that. You do it out of fear. I do it out of empathy.

[Belz...]

Why do people who refuse to pay taxes treated like criminals considering this definition on the IRS website:

Source: IRS (http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/tools_glossary.jsp)

Well, well. What a pleasant surprise. Another truther on that side of the fence.

I stand amazed.

[Belz...]

Government cannot exist but for coerced taxation.

How about voluntary taxation ?

Taxation is institutionalized theft, and is no more beneficial to society than any other kind of theft.

Well, then. I hope you enjoy your utopic anarchy. I don't know how that's supposed to work, but I guess a whole lot of crimes are being carried out there, without organied opposition. Good thing it's not that way in the real world.

All stolen goods, Arus.

Only if you "assume" that the constitution is not legitimate...

Are you suggesting that if 51% of the people are in favor of "x", then "x" is OK?

No, we are suggestion that if 51% of the people are in favor of "x", then "x" becomes the will of the people.

Nobody has answered my question about popular support for slavery.

Unfortunately, when slavery used to be legal, it was legal. That answers your question, methinks.

To answer some questions from above, I emphatically do NOT support the notion that majority vote legitimizes anything. If 51% (or 75%) of the people voted to gouge the eyeballs out of the remaining people for sheer idle amusement, that would NOT make it legitimate. Slavery was illegitimate, despite enjoying popular support.

Excellent! Now you can safely ignore any and all laws, anywhere, and declare yourself your sole judge and jury. Good luck with that.

[Belz...]

To repeat, to sort out what is and is not ethical, we need a rational system of natural law.

Tell, me Ace. What "natural laws" would that be ? And how would they be enforced ?

[Arus808]

Nobody has answered my question about popular support for slavery. It makes for an instructive case.


that is the reason why this country isnt determined by the popular vote but a body of representatives to vote on their behalf.

yes there was a support for slavery. however, it was abolished when the 13th amendment was ratified. So what's your point? That means that the amendment got the votes needed to pass and abolish a horrendous crime.

27 of the 36 states in 1865 passed and the amendment was ratified in December of 1865. the required 3/4ths votes needed. An additional 9 states ratified the Amendment with , Delaware, Kentucky and Mississippi being the last three states from the original 36 when the amendment was proposed, to ratify in the 20th century (1901, 1976 and 1995 respectively).


To answer some questions from above, I emphatically do NOT support the notion that majority vote legitimizes anything. If 51% (or 75%) of the people voted to gouge the eyeballs out of the remaining people for sheer idle amusement, that would NOT make it legitimate. Slavery was illegitimate, despite enjoying popular support.

slipper slope.



define natural laws btw.

[Anti-sophist]

The Natural Laws

1. Anything I believe is Law
2. Anything I do not believe is not Law
3. Anything you believe is Law if and only if it adheres the above Laws.
4. All other beliefs are silly social constructs that are meaningless! HA HA! PAY YOUR TAXES CORPORATE SLAVES AND PAVE MY ROADS FOR ME!
5. You must ignore that last part!

[DavidJames]

The Natural Laws

1. Anything I believe is Law
2. Anything I do not believe is not Law
3. Anything you believe is Law if and only if it adheres the above Laws.
4. All other beliefs are silly social constructs that are meaningless! HA HA! PAY YOUR TAXES CORPORATE SLAVES AND PAVE MY ROADS FOR ME!
5. You must ignore that last part!
I suspect this is pretty close to what they think, although you'll never get them to admit it. I've asked many Libertarian's in the Politics forum to define natural law when they bring it up. I've never received an answer. Or at least one that includes a list of them, or where they came from.

[Bob Klase]

To repeat, to sort out what is and is not ethical, we need a rational system of natural law.

I (and many others here it seems) continue to wait for your description of that system.

[David Wong]

Nobody has answered my question about popular support for slavery. It makes for an instructive case.

To answer some questions from above, I emphatically do NOT support the notion that majority vote legitimizes anything.


I think I understand.

The Constitution is not legitimate, for one reason: it was never put to a popular vote. Thus, popular vote is the only legitimizer.

Also, you remind us that popular votes don't legitimize anything, because the people are often wrong.

Thus, nothing is ever legitimate, ever, under any circumstances.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . This is new. You can prove that all the existing states at the time followed their individual state laws in order to ratify an amendment of the Federal Constitution?


Burden-of-proof shifting fallacy. The Secretary of State reported that the amendment was duly ratified, and several courts have held that it was. The burden of proof is now on anyone claiming that was not the case.



Bill Benson is on trial for what amounts to "anti government speech" in his examination of the illegal 16th amendment.

In summary, Bill Benson, a former tax investigator himself, compiled documentary proof that US Secretary of State Philander Knox lied to the US Congress when he announced that the 16th Amendment was "in effect" (Knox pointedly avoided using the word 'ratified' in his letter of transmittal to Congress).

For example, Knox claimed Kentucky voted for ratification, but state records show that Kentucky voted the amendment down, 22 to 9.

Knox claimed California ratified the Amendment, but there is no record of a vote in the California legislative archives.

Knox claimed Minnesota ratified the 16th amendment, but there is no evidence that Minnesota ever responded to the bill, one way or the other.

The US Government, which cites the 16th Amendment as authority to dip into your pocket, had taken Bill Benson to court for "falsely" claiming that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. Yet the same courts refuse to allow Benson to produce the certified state records (and the memorandums of Knox's own Solicitor General) that support his theory. This is another classic case of the judges declaring what is truth and punishing those who refuse to believe.


Bold text from above quote.

Normal text my responses.

Benson is on trial for what amounts to "anti government speech" in his examination of the illegal 16th amendment. . . .

Benson is on trial for peddling an abusive tax shelter scheme, which is a crime.

From an IRS filing (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/BensonDocs/Benson-DOJ-SummJudge.pdf) in Benson's current case.

Benson’s Reliance Defense Package and 16th Amendment Reliance Package each make false or fraudulent statements about the validity of the Sixteenth Amendment and the legal requirements imposed on taxpayers to file income tax returns and pay federal taxes. Benson’s deliberate misrepresentations concerning the Sixteenth Amendment also induce customers to purchase his products by promising them, in effect, that they are legally privileged to ignore the filing requirements of the internal revenue laws because they have supposedly relied on his argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified in failing to file their returns or pay their taxes.

Prohibiting Benson’s sales of Reliance Defense Packages and 16th Amendment Reliance Packages is consistent with the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect false commercial speech (including illegal tax advice), speech inciting others to break the law, or speech used as part of an illegal transaction. The permanent injunction requested in this case prohibits only unprotected speech.[emphasis added]


Bill Benson, a former tax investigator . . .

See here (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/Benson/benson.htm) for more information about Benson's work as an informer, and later a contract investigator, for the Illinois Department of Revenue. This page also has some other very interesting information on Benson and his activities.

[Benson] compiled documentary proof that US Secretary of State Philander Knox lied to the US Congress

Benson compiled documentary proof that Knox overlooked typographical errors and other minor problems in several of the ratifications, which was well within his discretion, as the courts have repeatedly held.

he announced that the 16th Amendment was "in effect" Knox pointedly avoided using the word 'ratified' in his letter of transmittal to Congress.

Non sequitur. An amendment is "in effect" when it has been duly ratified by 3/4 of the states. Saying an amendment has been "ratified" when one means "ratified by 3/4 of the states and thus in effect," would be inaccurate (though one sometimes hears this usage).

For example, Knox claimed Kentucky voted for ratification, but state records show that Kentucky voted the amendment down, 22 to 9.

The Kentucky Senate rejected a version with a minor change in the text. They later passed a slightly reworded version. Benson and his followers claim that the Kentucky legislature clerks committed "fraud" because they stated the amendment was passed on a date that fell on a Sunday. Evidently no allowance for misreading the calendar or typographical errors is made.

Knox claimed California ratified the Amendment, but there is no record of a vote in the California legislative archives.

Even if true, this does not constitute proof that vote did not take place, and does not meet the required burden of proof.

Knox claimed Minnesota ratified the 16th amendment, but there is no evidence that Minnesota ever responded to the bill, one way or the other.

Same as previous point.

The US Government, which cites the 16th Amendment as authority to dip into your pocket, had taken Bill Benson to court for "falsely" claiming that the 16th Amendment was not ratified.

See above.

Yet the same courts refuse to allow Benson to produce the certified state records (and the memorandums of Knox's own Solicitor General [sic]) that support his theory.

The courts have already ruled, repeatedly, that the issue of the Sixteenth Amendment's validity has been settled, by Congress, and cannot be revisited on the grounds of alleged irregularities in the ratification process. If a court makes a finding of fact on a certain issue, the parties involved are not allowed to argue the point. For example, if one side alleges that the weather was rainy on the day of an automobile accident, and the other side disputes that, the judge merely consults a reliable source and enters a finding of fact. End of discussion.

This is another classic case of the judges declaring what is truth and punishing those who refuse to believe.

This is another classic case of zealous laymen with an anti-government agenda assuming that they know more about constitutional law than the courts.

There is a reason some of our earliest leaders were opposed to a central bank.


Non sequitur. Banking and taxation are completely different in their operations and their effects on the economy.

[Arus808]

getting this back on track

heres the reply from the tax protester when I stated that using various forms of the tax protesters arguments, have been proven frivolous by the supreme court;



The people I know that have done it successfully haven't used any of those arguments and they no longer pay taxes, nor are they harrassed. And they have over a 15 year record of doing it. They aren't using frivolous claims. They are using the codes and statutes. But they don't sell it, teach it, or advertise it. You have to be very knowledgable of IRS codes as well as Federal codes and statutes before even attempting to try something like what they do.

[SpitfireIX]

getting this back on track

heres the reply from the tax protester when I stated that using various forms of the tax protesters arguments, have been proven frivolous by the supreme court;

The people I know that have done it successfully haven't used any of those arguments and they no longer pay taxes, nor are they harrassed. And they have over a 15 year record of doing it. They aren't using frivolous claims. They are using the codes and statutes. But they don't sell it, teach it, or advertise it. You have to be very knowledgable of IRS codes as well as Federal codes and statutes before even attempting to try something like what they do.


Speaking as a former accountant, I can say that there are plenty of ways to legally reduce your taxes, basically by engaging in activities that the government is (or was) eager to promote, such as starting a home-based business.

[Arus808]

Speaking as a former accountant, I can say that there are plenty of ways to legally reduce your taxes, basically by engaging in activities that the government is (or was) eager to promote, such as starting a home-based business.


but not totally eliminate it. That means "they" dont own any property (govt taxes property). And dont earn an income . or are a charity or self-proclaimed religious cult.

I do agree that you can lower your tax payments, but unless you're doing something really unscrupulous, you can't totally eliminate paying your tax.


of course if you dont work you're not incurring any income, therefore, dont have to pay taxes on your income.

[Triterope]

Arus,

Your friend offers nothing concrete. This is surprising; tax protestors are usually all too eager to explain to you how their method works, and refer you to their guru du jour.

Ask if there are any verifiable court cases in which the legality of these super-secret tax avoidance strategies was upheld. If he provides any, do a web search by case name and see if that's what they really say. Tax protestors love declaring cases as victories when they really aren't. The Quatloos forum is also a good place to ask.

If he insists that no case law exists for these super-secret legal strategies, and/or refuses to provide any verifiable information, accuse him of trolling.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Natural law would be this, briefly. I may have time later to link to the literature which supports this (Molinari, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al.)

Individuals own themselves.

All property is originally unowned.

Property becomes owned according to the homesteading principle. First to mix his labor with the land is rightful owner.

Producer owns product.

Voluntary exchange is allowed.

Voluntary contracts are allowed.

The initiation of force is not allowed.

The initiation of fraud is not allowed.

That's about all we need to regulate all of society.


You can launch into all of your questions about who will handle law enforcement and justice. I'll answer as I have time. Here's a nice little intro to the subject of private law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html

[Belz...]

Natural law would be this, briefly. [...]

Individuals own themselves.

This is a "natural law" ? How is it "natural" ?

All property is originally unowned.

That doesn't make sense. The person making the property owns it.

Producer owns product.

Which contradicts what you just said.

Voluntary exchange is allowed.

Voluntary contracts are allowed.

The initiation of force is not allowed.

The initiation of fraud is not allowed.

That's about all we need to regulate all of society.

Right. Your simplistic rules might work for you and your 47 friends, but for 300+ million people, it won't. Of course, you might notice that our laws and yours are based on those same principles, more or less.

[Checkmite]

To repeat, to sort out what is and is not ethical, we need a rational system of natural law.

If you dislike the way things are, then work to change them. But until you've changed them, you cannot simply proceed as if things are the way you think they should be, because from what I've read of your words, things are nothing like the way you think they should be. There is a grand difference between your little world, and reality.

For instance, you claim that majority opinion legitimizes nothing. You can come up with all kinds of reasons why you think that should be true; however, in real life, it's not, and there are innumerable examples which show that.

Now, it's certainly true that not everything the "majority" may happen to subscribe to at a particular time is morally or ethically sound. Slavery was a good example. How was that problem fixed? By people showing the majority that slavery was wrong. Once the majority subscribed to the "slavery is wrong" principle, slavery disappeared.

The minority fought ferociously for the right to keep slaves. They lost. Majority rules.

[Anti-sophist]

getting this back on track

heres the reply from the tax protester when I stated that using various forms of the tax protesters arguments, have been proven frivolous by the supreme court;


The people I know that have done it successfully haven't used any of those arguments and they no longer pay taxes, nor are they harrassed. And they have over a 15 year record of doing it. They aren't using frivolous claims. They are using the codes and statutes. But they don't sell it, teach it, or advertise it. You have to be very knowledgable of IRS codes as well as Federal codes and statutes before even attempting to try something like what they do.



Blah blah says the tax protestor.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ignorance
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#badarguments

Every tax protestor thinks all the other ones don't know the "real" way to argue it in court. Once their time comes, they lose, and think it's because the judge is in on the conspiracy.

Not getting caught doesn't make something legal. I break the speed limit on a fairly regular basis, but that doesn't make it legal.

Apparently his position has shifted from "it's legal to not pay taxes" to "if you do it right, you won't get caught".

[Triterope]

Once their time comes, they lose, and think it's because the judge is in on the conspiracy.

Or because they didn't say "abracadabra" at exactly the right time. There's a lot of magical thinking in tax protesting; the logic we've seen here suggests that the legal process is all about secret passwords that only work if invoked properly. This is convenient to tax-scam promoters, who, when told that their scheme failed, can easily say "well, you obviously didn't do it right."

[Admiral]

This is a "natural law" ? How is it "natural" ?

Honest question: from whom are you stealing your eyes and ears?

Unless you don't believe there are such things as property rights at all, it should seem pretty clear that even if you don't own anything else, you at least own yourself.

And if there's no such thing as property, not even of yourself, here's a question: why was slavery morally wrong?

That doesn't make sense. The person making the property owns it.

He means things like acorns and iron ore and other things found in nature.

Which contradicts what you just said.

See above.

Right. Your simplistic rules might work for you and your 47 friends, but for 300+ million people, it won't. Of course, you might notice that our laws and yours are based on those same principles, more or less.

I think it's the "more or less" that he's bothered by.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tax protester, I'm not an anarchist, and I'm certainly not a 9/11 truther. But I find it hard to believe that people on this board are rejecting TruthSeeker's arguments on the basis of "Well, he's a truther"- that's the definition of ad hominem.

[SpitfireIX]

. . . But I find it hard to believe that people on this board are rejecting TruthSeeker's arguments on the basis of "Well, he's a truther"- that's the definition of ad hominem.


No one rejected his so-called arguments because he's a "truther." They were rejected because they are frankly silly, unworkable, and self-serving. Serveral people (not including me, BTW) stated that his views are unsurprising, as they fit well with his "truther" ideology (evil gummit conspiracies and oppression, etc.).

[Admiral]

No one rejected his so-called arguments because he's a "truther." They were rejected because they are frankly silly, unworkable, and self-serving. Serveral people (not including me, BTW) stated that his views are unsurprising, as they fit well with his "truther" ideology (evil gummit conspiracies and oppression, etc.).

You're right.

Except I disagree with one thing: The fact that an argument is "self-serving" does not logically disprove it. That IS ad hominem.

[Bob Klase]

From: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/natural+law

A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

How are your laws binding upon human actions without agreement? Since they would have to be enforced by human actions (unlike the natural law of gravity), what makes them different than the laws/principles specified in the constitution?

Why would your arguments against the constitution not apply to your 'natural laws'?

You can launch into all of your questions about who will handle law enforcement and justice. I'll answer as I have time. Here's a nice little intro to the subject of private law.

Who will handle law enforcement and justice? How will they be selected? Will you require 100% agreement from everyone affected?

[Arus808]

Arus,

Your friend offers nothing concrete. This is surprising; tax protestors are usually all too eager to explain to you how their method works, and refer you to their guru du jour.

Ask if there are any verifiable court cases in which the legality of these super-secret tax avoidance strategies was upheld. If he provides any, do a web search by case name and see if that's what they really say. Tax protestors love declaring cases as victories when they really aren't. The Quatloos forum is also a good place to ask.

way ahead of you. That was my reply to him when that reply was posted. He can argue that his friends have been able to use the code to their advantage, and they haven't been "caught", but that means nothing unless they've stood before the court to put forth their claims. their claims are moot and mean nothing unless they are challenged.



If he insists that no case law exists for these super-secret legal strategies, and/or refuses to provide any verifiable information, accuse him of trolling.


Unfortunately, he is a moderator of the forum. Mod wise, he's perfect. This is the only subject that I've debated him on in the entire 2 years that I"ve been participating on the forum.

[Arus808]

Apparently his position has shifted from "it's legal to not pay taxes" to "if you do it right, you won't get caught".

And his reply:


As much as I would like to indulge you I will not. They aren't needing to use court cases and bullcrap. They use the code. They meet with the IRS every year and use the codes.

It's not a matter of getting "caught". They don't protest anything.

It takes a long time to learn.

Other than that, I can't tell you a thing other than what they do every year works. That is all I can tell you or that you need to know.

So Im to take the word of someone who doesn't even know what his friends are doing, and believe that what they are doing is legal? Uhuh...

[uk_dave]

So it's legal tax avoidance, not illegal tax evasion? Fair enough.

[Anti-sophist]

And his reply:

As much as I would like to indulge you I will not. They aren't needing to use court cases and bullcrap. They use the code. They meet with the IRS every year and use the codes.

It's not a matter of getting "caught". They don't protest anything.

It takes a long time to learn.

Other than that, I can't tell you a thing other than what they do every year works. That is all I can tell you or that you need to know.

So Im to take the word of someone who doesn't even know what his friends are doing, and believe that what they are doing is legal? Uhuh...


So basically he is right but won't tell you why.. only that he promises.. he is right. You aren't really having a debate anymore. His claim is unsubstantiated, and no amount proclaiming it's truth will change that. You've left the world of rational debate, at this point. He is asserting something, and refusing to justify it. If he wants to stand by an unsubstantiated claim, it's his prerogative. At this point, I would assert the existence of magical pixies who love to eat donuts, and leave the conversation at that.

However, I have no doubt that his claim is false, and he is either gravely mistaken to the nature of the events, or he is intentionally lying about it. Of course we'll never know, because it's impossible to debunk an argument that he refuses to provide.

[Arus808]

So basically he is right but won't tell you why.. only that he promises.. he is right. You aren't really having a debate anymore. His claim is unsubstantiated, and no amount proclaiming it's truth will change that. You've left the world of rational debate, at this point. He is asserting something, and refusing to justify it. If he wants to stand by an unsubstantiated claim, it's his prerogative. At this point, I would assert the existence of magical pixies who love to eat donuts, and leave the conversation at that.

However, I have no doubt that his claim is false, and he is either gravely mistaken to the nature of the events, or he is intentionally lying about it. Of course we'll never know, because it's impossible to debunk an argument that he refuses to provide.

Thanks sohpist - that's basically how I summed up the reply to him.

I called it the
"Friend of a friend said so" - so Im to believe its true because someone says its true.

Uhuh...yeah...

[chipmunk stew]

Please list these "Natural" laws. Also include the source as well as the process to resolve disagreements.
I'm bigger than you. Gimme your stuff or I'll mash you.

[Loss Leader]

Property becomes owned according to the homesteading principle. First to mix his labor with the land is rightful owner.


Well, it's good to see that there are still people around who take seriously a political philosophy that was developed for the express purpose of stealing land from Native Americans.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, it's good to see that there are still people around who take seriously a political philosophy that was developed for the express purpose of stealing land from Native Americans.
Hey, there's still some left--get it while it lasts!

[Checkmite]

Well, it's good to see that there are still people around who take seriously a political philosophy that was developed for the express purpose of stealing land from Native Americans.


Totally; it's Manifest Destiny, man.

In order for the land to be "homesteaded", the homesteaders had to first kill or run off all the Native Americans living on it. Coming full circle, I'm curious as to how TruthSeeker thinks he's going to evict tens of millions of homeowners in order to facilitate his new-age homesteaders.

[VespaGuy]

So it's legal tax avoidance, not illegal tax evasion? Fair enough.

So would that be tax avoision? ;)

Kent Brockman: Ladies and gentlemen, Krusty the clown, was arrested for massive tax fraud. Krusty's years of tax avoision would never had ke.. avoision, it's a crime, look it up. Would never had ke.. I don't say evasion, I say avoision.

[Bob Klase]

And his reply:

As much as I would like to indulge you I will not. They aren't needing to use court cases and bullcrap. They use the code. They meet with the IRS every year and use the codes.

It's not a matter of getting "caught". They don't protest anything.

It takes a long time to learn.

Other than that, I can't tell you a thing other than what they do every year works. That is all I can tell you or that you need to know.

So Im to take the word of someone who doesn't even know what his friends are doing, and believe that what they are doing is legal? Uhuh...

"They meet with the IRS every year"? Sounds like they're getting audited.

But there are people who pay no taxes legally. I have a nephew who, with his wife and 6 kids, no only pay no taxes every year- they actually get back $2000 or more that they didn't pay in. They do it by having enough income to get the earned income credit.

But what possible reason is there to keep it a big secret? Are they afraid that others will start doing it and the law will be changed? No much of a reason since the IRS obviously already knows what they're doing.

You're really in a pointless argument which seems to consist of "I'm right but I can't tell you why and I can't give you any evidence. But trust me, I'm right".

[Byzantine Magpie]

Natural law would be this, briefly. I may have time later to link to the literature which supports this (Molinari, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al.)

Individuals own themselves.

All property is originally unowned.

Property becomes owned according to the homesteading principle. First to mix his labor with the land is rightful owner.

Producer owns product.

Voluntary exchange is allowed.

Voluntary contracts are allowed.

The initiation of force is not allowed.

The initiation of fraud is not allowed.

That's about all we need to regulate all of society.

You can launch into all of your questions about who will handle law enforcement and justice. I'll answer as I have time. Here's a nice little intro to the subject of private law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html

This list of ideals is hardly original. I think you'll find most of these principles underlie most societies throughout our history. For example, I don't think you'll find any society which sanctions fraud or the use of force.

What's interesting is the way you skate over the process of implementing and enforcing these principles. The point is that implementing and enforcing the principles is the key to the success of your society, otherwise it will be exploited and dominated by people who break the principles while simultaneously paying lip service. As a general rule, the smaller a society, the less the need for complex enforcement systems, simply because everyone knows everyone else. But once a society gets past several hundred people, you increasingly need to rely on independent arbiters of these rules (that is, the state).

Your ideas come across in terms similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism, as practiced in Barcelona and Aragon in the early years of the Spanish Civil War (1936 to 1938). Each village, or each business in larger towns, was organised on AS principles. It was highly popular, especially among the poor, and often quite successful. But after the initial spurt of idealism died down, many people started doing what they could to obtain the greatest benefit at the least cost, leading to increasing cost and inefficiencies. Frankly, almost any change to how things were run was likely to improve the lot of the poor, so to claim an absolute success for AS is misleading.

[Arus808]

needed to dig this up because now it pertains to a recent ruling:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03



Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago.


the tax protester is now spamming this in the thread and actually started a new thread to try and justify her claims. Im not familiar with this case and not good on details, but what would be the reasoning behind his acquittal and why was he able to get that acquittal?

[Anti-sophist]

Many people have been acquitted of criminal charges regarding failure to pay income tax. That doesn't change the issue of moneys owed or legality of the income tax. You can -not- pay income taxes and -not- be guilty of a crime. That doesn't mean you aren't required to pay the back taxes, however.

Furthermore, as I've read, this case was about dividends and what-not on a trust he was the guardian of. Not exactly the income-tax that most of us are beholden to.

Pretty much propaganda on two levels. The premise isn't what they think it is (it aint about taxes on wages) and the conclusion isn't what they think it is (it's a criminal, not civil victory).

[Arus808]

thanks anti-sophist, that's what i thought, because of the whole trust issue. that's why i posted that its not what they think it means as my reply as well. I wasn't familiar with the case, and details are of course lacking


but what if he was getting paid out of the trust, to be guardian of the trust, to dole out the money from that trust to the beneficiary. wouldn't that be considered income?

[Anti-sophist]

More info: http://www.quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?t=96&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0