I'm sure that Radar has interpreted the meaning of the pledge as fits his liking, and not as author David Nolan originally intended. That pledge is for LP joiners:

I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Nolan originally wrote the pledge in 1972 as a way to ensure that the party did not become a magnet for violent extremists. He has been asked about this, and he has verified it.

Unfortunately, he wrote it in the lingua franca of the Ayn Rand-fueled high philosophers, and that part of the LP decided that it was a high philosophical pledge, not a warning not to take up guns.

Radar will prefer that approach to it, and will sign it with the notion that taking up guns against the government is just fine since the government was the one to initiate the force.

That's right. The government is initiating the force and I've been working peacefully within the system and will continue to do so until it can't be done anymore and that window is closing quickly.

Perhaps you can explain how one can work within the "system" to change the system when the "system" doesn't even abide by the rules of the system.

It's like trying to play a poker game where people make the rules up as they go along. There is no way to win. Except in this case the rules have been established but they are simply cheating. And when someone like me wants to stop the cheating and bring us back to an honest game, you think I'm the nutty guy. You want to allow the other player to cheat at the game and rob us, while I'm willing to stand up and ensure the game is fair for everyone.

I actually don't think you're nutty for having these beliefs. Maybe for others, but not these. To my guestimation, there are millions of people here that think the same, possibly tens of millions.

Many that I have met in my travels are not the stereotypical anti-gov't nutjobs either. They arent all burned out vets, bikers, crazies off their meds, or just plain anti-authority pains in the ass. From my experience, they are people who have read the promise of the USC and BOR and cannot reconcile the current events with was written there.

The culture in Amerika hes evolved into one that accepts what I would call tyranny. It's a very specific tyranny though. It's very appealing and comforting. At least to this point it has been. Generally speaking, when someone brings the conflict in the USC and what the gov't is doing now it's so foreign of a concept to the masses that are so happy, free and content (compared to the rest of the world) that they are rejected. The masses are incapable of imagining anything other than what *is* now. The true workable ideas that replace the income tax are incomprehensible. The idea of abolishing the income tax has been discouraged from being thoroughly thought out into a workable replacement. People's fears surface instead of positive possibilities. It's very UN PC to seriously suggest such a thing as to abolish income taxes..

So I can relate to the anti-war...ooops, I mean anti-Bush people in one small way. I have heard some complain that when they oppose the war, they are considered anti-American. From their perspective this isnt true. When I propose that the income tax be ripped out by the roots, set on fire and shot twice through the mellon, I'm looked upon as anti-american too. Because we both are promoting ideas that clash with the masses that are too busy enjoying beer, cable tv and fast food to even care.

But then again.....there are more than a few people that think that *I'm totally fucked up*, so there you go.

Join the club. But that doesn't stop either of us from telling the truth does it?

If I heard myself saying what I'm saying now 10 years ago I would have thought I sounded nutty too. But that was before I met actual people involved in the misdeeds of government, seen the paperwork and other proof sent by the government, and even had ex-government people like Ted Gunderson (Former FBI agent and head of the Los Angeles and Dallas offices of the FBI), Bill Benson (has actual physical proof that the 16th amendment didn't pass (certified copies of votes, etc), Joe Bannister (Former Gun carrying IRS agent who found out that income tax was fraud), John Turner (Former IRS agent who siezed property and found out income taxes were fraudelent), and dozens upon dozens of others who are genuinely credible and have actual proof.

Sadly most people (including many here) are walking through life blind to the world around them and what's happening. As long as they've got cable tv, microwaves, and a car they think they're free and everything is ok. They are like zombies and I try my best to wake them up and show them the world around them (almost like the Matrix) but some will never wake up and in thier ignorance accuse those who actually do know what's happening of being crazy.

I agree with that. That's where they want to be though. They think we're crazy, we think they are. Some may very well be open to our side, maybe now , maybe later. Or maybe never.

Undertoad was very much into this political thinking at one time too. He isn't any more, so we have to allow the possibility we wont feel as passionately about this in the years to come. There might be a great TV show that distracts us. :)

     According to them they're not, you are in violation of the 16th amendment since you say you don't pay your income tax. They are acting in good faith, with the 16th embedment being in effect in mind.
     How many people have spoken out on this thread that say they don't like income taxes, but prefer paying them to losing all the services they fund? It's not the will of the majority that is being ignored here, and the government serves that will. So, the government is not ignoring the will of the people.
     Of course I suspect you'll go into the "majority can't impose" argument. So I'm not sure why you brought this up anyway. Just wanted to bring it full circle? I don't know why I bother to ask since that's just the sort of question that you always ignore...
     So, I take it you've been shot? Since you directly link the IRS with a gun to a slaver with a whip and you don't do income tax then they must have shot you by now. Oh wait, in reality the situation isn't anything close to as harsh as slavery. You're just linking to a greater evil.
     There are legions looking to take over the world? Okay, I'll accept that. Now how many of them are in a position to do so? I gave GWB up before you got there. I really don't like the guy. Okay, he might try to maintain power even if voted out. I doubt even he'd try that though. Of course as I've said elsewhere he's tried (and succeeded) in doing a lot of things I didn't think he could pull off. Perhaps we can agree to take a "wait and see" approach, just keeping a close eye on him? What else would you suggest?
     Working from your point of view, then every Judge that has backed the 16th was either corrupt, stupid or scared. Fine, then you see only the corrupt ones as flat out bad. But then, from your point of view, doesn't that leave the door open to finding an intelligent and brave judge? Yet, you are already talking war.
     Yeah, but you have good intentions too right? ... Why is it that only the other guy that'll go to hell? Oh right, you've got purity, light and kittens on your side, so your intentions are beyond question.
     Sigh. Fine, I'll not say taxes without specifying income taxes anymore if you won't. It's a little cheesy to make the other guy say the entire phrase if you won't, and you have said 'tax' without the 'income' repeatedly.
     Um, by your own admission you've not paid income taxes. So you're not being robbed. Also you say if we know proper court procedure, as you do, we don't have to either. So how are you robbed or enslaved? Hmm, I've addressed the fact that by your own logic you still have an avenue open, just find a brave and honest judge. As far as the last line goes, by the beliefs you've previously expressed then you should have started shooting when the writer died. It's a little after the fact now. But if this is your belief then why didn't you?
     No, the military won't fire on their family's. But if you don't have a better percentage of the military than you do of the cellar then they will see you as the threat to their families, not the government. Just a thought.
     Again, if there are good people in the gov then it's not wholly corrupt. Talking about war before exhausting all other possibilities is nutty. Remember, you are saying that you'd expect to kill the people you plan to free. Does this mindset remind any one of anything?
     Heh, so we idiots should be only to happy to have you there to make our decisions so we don't strain our weak minds? I guess we're lucky to have someone a little more "equal" than us.
     Again, you said with proper procedure and such you don't have to pay. So, you're not having anything pushed on you.
     Oh yeah, sorry for the lateness of the reply. An electrical storm kept my computer down most of the day.

First of all, President Bush IS a good man. He's a Christian, and he's trying to defend our nation from terrorists (despite the best efforts of others, who would see this nation invaded by arab extremists). He's protecting you, and he needs our money to do it. I'd think you'd be at least a little bit grateful. Without income taxes, the military wouldn't be able to afford bombs and equipment, and wouldn't be able to take out wackos like Saddam Hussein. You should thank him for saving your life, not try to kill him.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because I think he's pretty well-protected. How exactly do you plan on getting past the Secret Service, hmm?

For the Chinese, Mexicans, Indonesians, Vietnamise, etc, etc, etc.

:D

:ctrl-p: *snip, snip*

That one's going on the cork-board.

Believe me, I feel the same kind of "sudden insight to what I was blind to before" NOW as I did when I had my ragingest LP hardon.

This is not a mellowing; I didn't forget any of the doctrine. I added to my understanding of the world to get where I am right now.

I also did some intellectually honest "what-ifs" and found that I didn't like the results I was getting.

Some Other Words You Might Want To Check The Definitions of, Radar
 

se·di·tion
n.

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.

sedition

\Se*di"tion\, n. [OE. sedicioun, OF. sedition, F. s['e]dition, fr. L. seditio, originally, a going aside; hence, an insurrectionary separation; pref. se-, sed-, aside + itio a going, fr. ire, itum, to go. Cf. Issue.] 1. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

In soothing them, we nourish 'gainst our senate The cockle of rebellion, insolence, sedition. --Shak.

Noisy demagogues who had been accused of sedition. --Macaulay.

2. Dissension; division; schism. [Obs.]

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, . . . emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies. --Gal. v. 19, 20.

Syn: Insurrection; tumult; uproar; riot; rebellion; revolt. See Insurrection.


----------

trea·son
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

treason

\Trea"son\, n. [OE. tresun, treisun, traisoun, OF. tra["i]son, F. trahison, L. traditio a giving up, a delivering up, fr. tradere to give up, betray. See Traitor, and cf. Tradition.] 1. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.

The treason of the murthering in the bed. --Chaucer.

Note: In monarchies, the killing of the sovereign, or an attempt to take his life, is treason. In England, to imagine or compass the death of the king, or of the queen consort, or of the heir apparent to the crown, is high treason, as are many other offenses created by statute. In the United States, treason is confined to the actual levying of war against the United States, or to an adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

2. Loosely, the betrayal of any trust or confidence; treachery; perfidy.

If he be false, she shall his treason see. --Chaucer.

Can you get specific? I respect your judgement, maybe I'll change my mind on some issues. I seriously doubt that I would flip but I'd like to hear the what ifs that you were concerned about.

According to Hitler, the Jews needed to be killed. But they were both wrong.

Almost all Americans would give up all unconstitutional services to never have to pay income taxes again. More than 70 million Americans don't file income tax returns and if it weren't for the fear of government attack it would be nearly all Americans.

Yes, the government is ignoring the will of the majority. The majority of Americans don't think the government is entitled to enslave them 4 months a year and to take what they have earned.

Not me, but many have been shot by the IRS. And they don't have to shoot. They can merely threaten or point a gun at you. This situation is EXACTLY the same as Slavery. In fact it IS slavery.

Working without compensation under duress or threat of violance is slavery and theft.

If a man points a gun at you and takes your money, it's robbery. What if the robber says he's going to use the money he steals from you to help out the needy? Is it still robbery? Of course it is. What if instead of one man, it's a gang of 10 men. Is it still robbery? Yes it is. What if it's a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million people? It's still robbery. What if it's 350 million people and they label themselves government? You got it. It's still robbery. Nobody's need entitles them to steal from me and the government isn't entitled to a single penny of what I earn.

The difference is they're fighting to control our lives and enslave us, and I'm fighting to free us from their control and allow us to control our own lives.

I am free but millions of my other countrymen are being enslaved, defrauded, and attacked. Are you saying if someone were attacking everyone in your neighborhood but hadn't attacked you yet, you wouldn't stand up to defend them? I'm just not that selfish. Also I won't stand by and watch my country be fucked up by criminals like the politicians and judges in power at the moment. And there are no brave and honest judges who will stand up against the income taxes. The government has judges on a short leash; their paychecks. The judges know if they go against the government they won't be working very long or worse. The government isn't above killing American citizens who are a fly in the ointment.

There are no good people in the government, but even if there were, they wouldn't oppose us when we took over. If they oppose us, they're not good people. And all peaceful possibilities of working within the system have been exhausted. It's impossible to win a game when your opponent won't stick to the rules or worse yet, makes the rules up as he goes along. And I wouldn't expect to kill the people I plan to free, only those who would oppose me in doing it. And if you want a mindset that says you want to kill the people you plan to free, look no further than the murdering scumbag George W. Bush.

I don't plan on making your decisions for you. I plan on making you free to make your own decisions rather than having George Bush, Bill Clinton, or others usurp your power to do it.

President Bush is a murdering imperialistic terrorist and being a Christian doesn't make you a good person. And America is in far more danger from Christian fundamentalists than it will ever be from Arab Extremists. George W. Bush is the most dangerous man to America. He's more dangerous than Bin Laden, Hussein, and all middle-eastern nations combined. He's the biggest threat to world peace on earth.

He isn't "protecting" shit. He is starting unprovoked, unconstitutional, unwarranted, imperialistic, wars of terrorist aggression against countries that don't pose a threat and never have. Iraq never attacked America, never planned to attack America, never helped anyone else attack America, never funded, harbored, or trained anyone who has attacked America, and has no ties with any groups who have. Yet America launched not one but two unconstitutional attacks against Iraq, and subsequently starved 200,000 of their people to death and kept them from life saving medicines. George W. Bush is endangering America because he's inspiring hundreds of thousands of people to avenge those who America unjustly murdered in Iraq. And I'm not grateful for that disgrace to America who attacks others and then attacks the civil rights of Americans.

Without income taxes the military would be able to afford all of the bombs and equipment they need to DEFEND America and we'd still be able to do all of the Constitutional parts of government. In fact if income taxes ended entirely today, the military would be fine and so would the government because all of those things can be funded entirely with just the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. They'd just have to give up all the unconstitutional stuff.

How did Hinkley, or Booth, or the others get past them?

And the Americans. Although most of the people you mentioned are Americans. In fact someone born in China who comes to America and becomes a citizen is probably more American than a white guy born in America because they valued this country enough to choose to become a citizen instead of being a racist idiot born here who thinks he has more right to be an American than someone from another country.

Wolf: By your definitions George W. Bush is guilty of treason. He aided the Taliban before our war against them. He gave them 40 million dollars 3 months before the September 11th attacks. You can rest assured it was used against us. George W. Bush goes against every single thing this country stands for. America was created to escape from imperialistic tyrrany and thanks to Bush we're now practicing it. He violates every one of our civil rights in the name of "security".

George W. Bush wants to promote peace by starting wars. He wants to balance the budget with deficit spending. He wants to free the people of Iraq by blowing them up and controlling them in a police state. He wants to protect the environment by suggesting we use more coal, nuclear, and oil energy sources. He wants to improve our foreign policy by pissing off every country in the U.N. and raising tariffs. He wants to stimulate the economy by bringing us into a recession. He wants to defend our freedom by attacking our civil rights. He wants to uphold and defend the Constitution by championing and passing the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in American history. He wants to lower drug use by keeping black markets strong and drug dealers rich. He wants to fight terrorists by giving them millions of dollars and ensuring they'll have tons of profits by selling drugs on the black markets. And Bush wants to make government smaller by adding new departments and extra funding for unconstitutional social programs.

Social welfare programs under George W. Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton

Sedition against tyrranical oppressors who claim to have unlimited power and wreck your government is not sedition at all; it's patriotism.

On the subject of natural rights.

If you believe that people aren't born with certain rights than you believe they can never have rights. Because if nobody is born with rights who can give them rights? A government is nothing more than a collection of individuals and if those individuals don't have rights separately, how can they have them when they are together?

The answer is simple. Government has no rights, nor does "society". Government has specific and limited powers given to it by individuals who do have rights and government has no powers beyond the rights of individuals.