You may view my opinion of radar's posts on Syc's forum. He tends to be annoying by the sarcasm, copied articles, and confrontational nature.

Forgive me Whit, I thought this thread was fairly cleaned up (for a radar post). Maybe I agree with his views more than you , but they dont seem as difficult to agree with lately because he's not calling everyone a cock smoker or slapping dick out of dissenters' mouths. *THAT* was fucking annoying.

The debate seems to be pretty rational to me, although some links would be nice.*

* - but then again, who has the time to supply sourses for every idea they post about.

BINGO!
He's absolutely right. Only idiots would keep trying to convince Radar he's wrong. Little engine's that couldn't. Stop taking the bait, people!

     I just don't get why he's always insulting me when I'm trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about. I'm just about the only one who hasn't given up completely on the guy. I don't believe he is capable of changing his opinions, but I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I'm just trying to figure out why he's so into it. His method of convincing me is pretty much, "I'm right and your an idiot!" Like that's going to convince anyone of anything.
     No Bruce, I don't think George Washington could effect Radar's opinions. Like I said, I'm still looking for the proof he keeps claiming he's given. It's all about what he or some guy says.

Trust me I haven't insulted you. I've pointed out a few of your moer obvious faults but if as slang noted, if the insults are unleashed, you'll know it.

I have explained my points clearly, intelligently, and in an easy to understand method yet you keep claiming you don't understand what I'm saying. What else am I to believe when what I've said is easy enough for an 8 year old child to grasp yet you can't?

I've provided you with evidence and proof showing that the 16th amendment WAS NOT legally ratified and was therefore unconstitutional. I have also pointed out other ways income taxes are illegal. I have also discussed where government derives it's powers from. Yet at each and every turn you claim that I haven't provided proof or that I'm only using my own opinion. You are simply lying. While I have provide my opinions, I've also backed them up with facts and locations for you to verify what I've said. Yet you continue to make baseless and false accusations.

I wish I could just put a brain in your skull so you could understand what I've said but no matter how easy I explain it, you're too dense to get it. I'm seriously not trying to be insulting but what else can I say? Obviously no amount of proof matters because you will just lie and say I didn't provide it or say you don't get it.

I really don't agree, and neither does dictionary.com.

It defines <b>entity</b> (in part) as:<blockquote> 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: <i>Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.</i> </blockquote>If a corporation can be an entity, then why can't a government? I think this clearly shows that governments are entities.

The concept of "rights" is an invention of the human mind, and if the people collectively decide that they collectively have rights, then they do. Why? Because people invented rights. Therefore, they collectively decide who has them.

The government is doing these things you think they don't have a right to do. The majority of the people agree that it's okay for them to do it. The people collectively decide the definition and assignment of rights. They also have the power to enforce their will. Therefore, the government has the rights and authority.

If the government can force people to do something, then they have the authority to do so.

What does a corporation look like? It's nothing more than a logical organization of businesses and assets so you can't see it.

Can you touch a corporation?

You can't touch an idea. It's not tangible. You may be able to touch a building that a corporation owns, but you can't touch the corporation.

Absolutely false. All humans are born with rights. They get these rights from their respective creators and not from government or from other people. If a person were born on an island and was left there all by themselves, what rights would that person have? They could do anything they wanted. But when another person moves to the island now they agree to allow each other to live peacefully and not to infringe on each others equal rights. Each of them is born with the same rights. When governments are created the government only has those powers given to it by the people who have all rights. None of these people were given rights by the government but rather they were born with 100% of all rights and powers and only agree to give some limited powers to government to handle things like common defense.

There's no "collective". Government has no rights and "society" has no rights. Only individuals do. People didn't invent rights, people are born with the rights their respective creators gave them. People don't decide the definition or assignment of rights, nor does government.

The U.S. Government may only do those limited things that are listed in the constitution and nothing else because only those powers have been granted to government. And there are certain things that government may never do because government may only have the powers that individuals hold and have granted to it. The government is not above the people or above individuals. The government answers to the people, not the other way around.

That's completely false. The powers of our government are limited to what is specifically listed in the constitution. And no matter how many guns or nukes or anything else the government has, they don't have any more authority than that. If they exceed their authority they have violated the law and will answer to the people.

What do you do about disadvantaged people whose mothers did not give them as many rights as most mothers give their children? Should society give them these rights to balance it out, or should they be limited in their rights for the rest of their lives?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, most of my points came directly from your quotes. So yeah, they're basesless. :D
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If this is true then you can name the supreme court cases. If it's not a tax case then you've deliberately misleading this forum. If you can't name the case then you've lied outright. Case please? You responded with: So was the issue "taxes" or "Taxation without representation?" Oh wait you already said taxation. You sought to use the founding fathers to your advatage by lieing about the reason for the Boston Tea party, when asked for clarification you say they don't represent you. WTF? Then why did you bring them up then? And lie?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Um, with your vast knowledge could you address that you say the first time it's in court the court referenced a previous case? I think you're fibbin'.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This was supposed to be longer, but a chic-friend of mine needs someone to light her hot water heater. Don't ask why she doesn't know how, I don't know.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, Radar, show me where I've lied. Quote it to me or I will accept your claim that I lied as another lie.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One last thing.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think somebody needs a hug.

According to the dictionary, a government or corporation qualifies as an "entity". Therefore, according to the dictionary, your statement that "There is no such entity as 'government'" is false.


Please prove this statement, or I won't believe you. This is what I mean when I say that you don't ask yourself if you could be wrong.


Please prove these statements. I respect your opinion, but you're passing this off as fact. And since I have high standards of proof, I must ask you for proof.


Obviously, the government <i>does</i> do these things (I hope we can agree on that). I think what you mean is that they're not ethically allowed to, because you feel that they're stealing from you. What I'd like you to understand is that morality and rights are a matter of opinion (not fact).



No, the government can do whatever it can get away with. It's power is not limited by your imaginary 'rights'. In reality, they DO have the power to tax people; the fact that they actually do is proof of this. Read the dictionary. It says if someone can force you to do something, then they have authority over you.

You know Radar I used to be like you, I used to think I was right about everything, no one could change my mind, and I didn't see anything wrong with that, then I GREW UP and understood that other people know what they are talking about. I still think I'm right most of the time, but if someone presents an argument to me I usually listen, I don't just throw the argument out the window and scream I'M RIGHT over and over again like a whiney little shit. That really pisses people off.

How can this be? Maybe the word entity isn't the best word for the government, I'm not going to argue that point, not saying your right just not going to disagree with you. But if, as I'm assuming your saying, there really is NO government where the hell do our rules/laws come from. Shit, I'm sitting in a library at this moment, one that was funded partly by government dollars, does that mean that the construction company that got paid was jipped out of a few mil becuase there is no such thing as government.

Then again maybe I misunderstood what your where saying, can't say that hasn't happened to me before.

And that, my friends, is exactly what he wants.

I don't think anyone is pissed here. Personally, I find it really interesting.

Heh.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey Juju, didn't I tell you what Radar's explanation of "no government" would be? I think I hit it within a few words. I didn't elaborate as much as he did, but I didn't think you wanted me to.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.

Disadvantaged people don't have less rights than wealthy people. And nobody is owed anything simply based on their need.

I haven't lied. I said we would represents people all the way to the supreme court and we will. I can name hundreds of cases we've done but as I've said the supreme court won't hear challenges to the 16th amendment. But we have a legal defense fund and lawyers waiting for the opportunity. Should I tell you about a case we won against the California Franchise Tax board (far more aggressive than the IRS) for over a quarter million dollars? Not that it would matter to you.

No, I said INCOME taxation.

No I didn't. Again I have never lied in here and have no reason to. I said this nation was built by tax protestors and that is the truth. The members of the Boston tea party were tax protestors. The fact that they were protesting taxation without proper representation doesn't change the fact that they were protesting a tax. Don't try to twist things around, you're not bright enough to slip anything past me. And for the record the American people don't have adequate representation.

You said that about the first time in court, not me. Don't try to setup straw men and then knock them down because that doesn't fly here. There have always been corrupt judges and officials especially with regard to taxation. And there have always been sleazy little people who will look for loopholes or ways around the constitution. All they need is one corrupt judge's ruling to make a precedent for another. But in the end case law is irrelevant. It all comes down to the constitution.

You're a liar. You have no friends.

First answer this question if you believe people get their rights from government. What rights would a person on a desert island have if there were no government to bestow those rights on them?

After you're done figuring out that natural rights are self evident you can read the following:

The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

The Law by Lysander Spooner

The Declaration of Independence

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do - By Peter McWilliams

The works of John Locke

Or you can read any number of other books on the subject.

See above for proof. Either that or look at the world around you. Natural rights are self-evident.

We do agree on that.

No, that's not what I mean. The government is not only prevented ethically, but legally. They may not legally do anything that isn't specifically listed in the constitution. Morality and ethics aren't the issue.

That's 100% false. The government can only do those things specifically listed in the constitution. The constitution defines and limits the powers of government and is prevented from attacking our civil rights. Your imaginary all powerful government doesn't exist and as long as people are alive it never will.

No, you read the dictionary and not just the parts you like. Read the part that says "One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority" or the part that says, "Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.". The government only has those powers given to it by the constitution and NOTHING MORE period.

Government is an idea. It's not a physical tangible thing. You can't touch government. You can't see "government". You can see and touch the guns and soldiers working for the "government" and even sit in a government owned library, but government itself can't be seen, touched, smelled, touched, or tasted because it's an intangible.

And yet they haven't sunk in to your thick skull.

No, it's not. He redacted it, as well as made other "corrections" in his copy.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is what you said.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is what you say you said. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You changed tenses, you sly dog you. Wait, let me try, "You make sense!" "No, I said You WILL make sense!" No, damn, I messed it up. Both are wrong. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Nope, I was talking about the first time a blue shirt case goes to court. You came up with the mutiples of court cases on your own. I just questioned it. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This still leaves out half the story. It's still a half-truth at best. A half truth is still not the truth. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dude, that is freakin' hilarious! Wait a minute, have you been messin' with us this whole time? Saying crazy shit, to see how long you could string us along? Damn, we've been had!

Let me clear it up for you.

We do represent people in court and will continue to do so all the way to the supreme court if we can get them to take our cases.

It's all truth. My entire statement is true. The founding fathers were tax protestors. They were also protesters about the level of representation they had in government but that doesn't make them any less of tax protestors.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ah, that makes sense. That's what you should have said in the first place. That's an admirable goal. Good luck with that. One warning, if you go into court mouthing off like you do in here you'll be tossed out. Good luck.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Saying the founding fathers were tax protestors in a discussion about taxes suggests that representation wasn't an issue. It's deliberately misleading.

Sorry to keep the thread going.

I think Juju pegged part of the real disconnect here and then the discussion went the wrong direction.

Radar wants a government that doesn't represent what the people want - or one that forces the "correct" choices (i.e., his choices) on a public that won't volunteer for them.

Radar's philosophy may well be absolutely correct. It is, fortunately or unfortunately, not shared with the majority, and so there is a Problem.

Is it tyrannical to establish a set of rules that the majority does not agree with, in order to maintain a set of abstract principles that may be absolutely correct?

Is it even possible? I don't think the people would accept Radar's non-Government; I think they would abandon it quickly and establish a new one that represents their wishes.

I notice that many of the very authors of the Absolutely Correct Constitution were slave owners? Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, all slave owners. How to square the idea that the very authors of this very rigid document should have been prosecuted under it?

How to square the idea that the LP and CP have, on occasion, put up Constitutional hardasses in free elections and these candidates have always been routed?

In the world of ideas, compromise is poison. In the real world, it is the antidote.

I want no such thing. i don't want to force anything on anyone but I also don't want it forced on me. The people of America didn't choose to have their income taxed and most would like income taxes to disappear. Most know paying income tax is not a patriotic duty and they're not even necessary.

What many of you fail to grasp is that the majority does not always rule and that the powers of government may not exceed the rights of individuals. Although the majority of Americans do agree with the constitution and all of the limits it places on the powers of government.

Let's say yes. And that being said it must be tyrranical to force Americans to pay income taxes when the majority of Americans don't agree with them. Claiming that the majority always rules over the minority is also tyrranical. So is a government with unlimited power.

I'm not an anarchist in any sense of the term. I recognize the need for governemnt and also the need to keep it as small as possible to do only what is listed in the constitution to prevent the tyrrany already mentioned. And yes, the people would accept it as they did for over 100 years when this country started.

Typical lame "white slave owner" comment. The founding fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to promote liberty and freedom (as they were back then) for everyone. Slaves were considered property at the time and not people and women weren't considered fit to vote. But the founders did know that they didn't know everything and that's why they designed the constitution so it could be amended but wanted changes to be taken seriously so they made it difficult to pass an amendment (which is why government now violates the constitution rather than try to amend it - see war powers act, patriot act, etc.). That is why the constitution is just as relevant, and perfect today as the day it was written.

Easy to square. The LP doesn't accept dirty money and the major two parties take every step to ensure to keep the LP out of important debates (because they know they'd get thier asses handed to them), and outspend the LP in every race using money stolen from the American public.

No, it's poison in the real world too, but it's slow acting poison like ciggarettes.

In Pennsylvania the minor party candidates are almost always included in every debate from Governor on down. It doesn't make a difference. In Pennsylvania they do not hand out any public money for campaigns. It doesn't make a difference.

The public has been offered your deal and has rejected it. They don't care about the income tax. People are polled about what they consider to be the important issues of the day and taxation is never on their list. (Please, push-polling doesn't count.)

I'm not sure about the founding fathers' nobility. I would like to think they were the great people we assume they were, and not just that they got lucky. Maybe they had the remarkable insight to construct a "perfect" foundation of human rights whilst not knowing exactly what a human was. But you can't look at history through such rose-colored glasses. There was an anti-slavery movement at the time; it started in Europe at about the same time as the American Revolution. Why didn't it start here, in the "birthplace of freedom"?

. o O o .

The question may not be whether it is right to establish a philosophically-correct but unrepresentational government, but whether it's even possible to maintain such a thing.

After all, how would one go about it?

One good way would be to gather the most freedom-oriented guys in a room, declare independence from the controlling doofuses, fight them until they tire of it. Then write a really libertarian founding document -- some would say a "perfect" document -- and set the thing in motion.

But history tells us that, after enough years of such an experiment, the people will inevitably find a way to get approximately the government they WANT, not the government that is dictated to them, no matter how hard-ass the founders are or how stringent the wording of their founding document.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You've been talking about a second revolution. If war isn't forcing your views what is?

When my kin moved from Boston to Weathersfield, CT in the early 1630's. slaves were prohibited in many communities. It's the birds of a feather thing. Sentiment was both polar and strong. They weren't shy about castigating those they disagreed with either.

Re: Heh.
 

I'm still considering my other response, but since you requested this, here it is. :)

---- New Conversation @ Mon Apr 21 17:51:38 2003 ----
[..]
(17:54:36) juju: "There is no such entity as "government""
(17:54:44) juju: What do you think he meant by this statement?
(17:54:48) whit: Sigh.
(17:54:53) juju: It's obviously false.
(17:56:02) whit: It's an old bullshit line. He means that the goverment is made up of individual people not a thing onto itself. You can't hold it, so it aint.
(17:57:40) whit: It's a cheap cop-out.
(17:59:26) juju: oh
(17:59:33) juju: thanks.
(18:03:26) whit: Anytime.
[..]

Interesting. I guess he actually posted his explanation a few minutes before Whit explained it. It's not like we're refreshing the page every 60 seconds, though, so don't think there's any dishonesty there.

It took you guys 9 minutes to have that conversation.

Everyone's a critic. Actually it lasted longer, 'cause we said other stuff before and after that.

It wouldn't be a war to force my views on others but rather to stop them from forcing theirs on me. I would be forcing government to stick to the Constitution. They will follow the rules even if blood must be spilled to make it happen. The government works for us and will do only those things the people have authorized them to do and the only thing the federal government is authorized to do by the people are the things specifically listed in the Constitution.

The government doesn't represent the will of the American people. Americans don't think income taxes are a good idea and never voted to have them. You think because people haven't revolted they are fine with taxes and you couldn't be further from the truth.

It's not a cop out, it's a fact whether you like it or not.

Sadly there are too many fools who read the constitution for what they want it to be instead of reading it for what it says like myself.

See Radar I think your missing the point of democracy, it's that the will of the people is represented, and the general will of the people is that things stay the pretty much the way they are. Yeah everyone wishes they could change something, be it the tax system or how the president is elected, but unless more than just a few people rs stand up and say they want it changed everything is going to stay the same, that's becuase it's the people will.
It doesn't matter what was written down on a piece of paper and called a constitution all those years ago, that was just a guidline, if the majority of people in the US decided that we don't have the right to bear arms then we won't have the right to bear arms. It's more complicated then that obviously but in the end majority does rule and it doesn't matter if you feel your right or not.

Of course it's a cheap cop-out. By your logic a car doesn't exist, you might touch a fender, or a windshield but that isn't the car. It's not only a cop-out, it's a cheap, poor one at that. The only people that use lines like that are fantics, existentialists and people that want to argue but can't come up with something reasonable. Notice I said argue, not discuss.

Also, if the goverment doesn't exist, how can you revolt?
When you talk about war you're talking about a lot of innocent poeple dieing. You can say you're only killing the people that are seeking to illegaly dominate you, but those aren't the only people that will die. Also, you're setting yourself up as the one that will pass judgment on people. You are speaking of being the judge, jury and executioner. That is ultimately unamerican. You are talking about murder.

Cam, you seem unable to grasp the concept that people are born with rights. We don't get those rights from the government or from other people in our country. We're born with them and they can't be taken away from us or even given away. There are certain areas where the majority has no authority over individuals. And it absolutely matters what is written on the constitution and it's more than a "guideline". Laws aren't guidelines or the government wouldn't arrest people when they broke the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land and can't be crossed or none of our government is worth a thing. It's the foundation of our government and our law and if you mess with it, everything crashes around us.

One of the rights we're all born with is the right to live. And if we have a right to life, we have a right to defend that life any way we see fit and that includes the right to keep and bear arms even if every single person in America other than myself voted to eliminate gun ownership, it would still be my right and the law would be unconstitutional and illegal.

There are some areas where the majority doesn't rule and has no power. The people in America don't support income taxes. It's a far stretch of the imagination to suggest they do simply because they choose to do it out of the fear of going to jail. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and robbing you and saying, "He wanted to give me the money."

I didn't say government doesn't exist, it just doesn't exist as a being with rights. "society" has no rights. Only individuals do. And government has no powers other than those specifically listed in the constitution. Government, like a corporation, is simply an organizational structure but not an actual being.

If a slave kills their master is it murder? Was it murder when the founding fathers fought against their British oppressors? Of course it isn't. On a battle field if a soldier kills an opposing soldier, is it murder? Has that soldier set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner? Not at all.

As the founding fathers have said...

So the peoples will means nothing, it's just something to laugh at while pointing at the constitution and saying "this is what they said and they knew how the world was going to turn out so we can't possibly go against it". Seriously man the Constitution is a piece of paper, people make laws, people enforce laws, people decide what's right and wrong, a piece of paper is just that, yeah it means a lot, I love the Constitution it's a hell of a document, one of the greatest ever written, but just like the Articles of the Confederation, if people decide they don't like the Constitution it's gone that's what democracy is all about.

Who are these people you keep refering to? yeah I don't like paying taxes and most people don't, but I don't know many people who are completely against them as you seem to think they are.

Yes. It may be justifiable, but it is still murder. I'll get back to you on the other questions.

That's funny and I agree. Since the income tax is "undefeatable" , meaning there hasn't been any legal challenge to it's validity in the USSC, the masses have given up on changing it. That doesnt mean (to me) that they arent opposed to it, it means they have chosen other battles that seem more possible to win.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;There is no monarchy ignoring people across the sea. There is no vicious slaver cracking a whip. There is no 'Proffesor Darkevil' trying to take over the world. Well, Bush might want to but he doesn't have the time in office left...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, there are corrupt people in the system. But there is no way every Judge in the US is a bad person. Most of the people in the system at least start off trying to do some good. Many believe they are doing the right thing. They are trying to do the best for the people they can. Instead of voting for better people you want to shoot the ones that are in now. Is paying taxes (or not, in your case) enough to shoot another man? As oposed to continuing to work through the system?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You make it sound like you are going to line up and face down the US military and smite them with your rightousness.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You are not talking about reform, you are talking about destruction. Killing fathers and mothers that, in many cases, are just as sure that they are following the Constitution as you are. The difference is that they work in the system to accoplish what they think are improvements. You say you'll shoot them.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The odd part is that you can't see that calling us idiots for not agreeing with everything you say is against the very idea "all men are created equal." You are not the first person to say that. Like too many off them your suggested actions add, "But some are more equal than others."
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;From the beginning of this you've made your superiority clear. We can't understand because we are idiots. So we should listen to your "vast" knowledge and experience. No, all of us are equalls. We have a right to ideas different than yours without the threat of war. You say that they are wrong because they threaten to jail anyone that doesn't so as told. You threaten revolution. You have certainly proven yourself superior to them. You'll kill instead of jail. Way to go.

Looks like Radar and Big Bubba will grow old together.
The people I talk to (and me) don't object to paying income tax. We do grumble about how much of what they collect is wasted on stupid shit. You here all the time about pork barrel projects and studies on the sex life of slugs. That's what annoys "We the people".

I meant hear:blush:

Well, if you do initiate the revolution, I hope you'll spare President Bush. He's a good man, and doesn't deserve death, even if he does command the army to kill you.

I can't believe I'm just now remembering to post this, but I think Radar lives just down the street from me. Have a look at his newsprint debut: I bet Gandhi would have had lunch.

Here's my argument about taxes:
Let it be known that I hate to pay them as much as the next guy. Let it also be known that I hate having to search for ways to keep as much of my earned money as possible. Let's assume for a minute that taxes were abolished due, in part, to Radar's (flawed) sense of federal law among other things. So now I, along with my neighbors, the people reading this and everyone else that bothers to pay, have more expendible money. What can I do with all this money? SPEND IT, OF COURSE!! What do my neighbors plan to do? Well, after they move as far away from me as possible and into their grand, brand new estate double-size double-wide, they go out and buy a Caddy fo' the Daddy. What do I do? The exact same thing. Now we're all spending the extra 15-28% "extra" that we have. (The rich don't need to spend their 34% -- they're rich!) How long does it take before inflation catches up to the surplus of cash in the economy? Just about the time you reach for the post-dated jug of milk, the pimple-faced stocker boy is changing the price stick to read 6$. Yippe! But that doesn't matter, because I have "extra" money that Uncle Sam was trying to spend on defense projects that created contracts, which in turn created jobs. That in turn killed the projects, so now Dave has a lot of free time on his hands to conjure up a new-fangled credit company that is just about necessary to pay for a trip to the movies (like it isn't already), because too many people went out and spent their "extra" money without realising that inflation has an impact on Fed rates and, therefore, interest rates. So now my neighbors are forced to move back into the place next to me and make their kids drive around in an older model Grampa-mobile. But that doesn't matter, because we don't have to pay taxes anymore!

I was going to say that, and now I wish I had.

The right thing never includes violating the Constitution.

No, there's a government right here ignoring the will of the people.

No, now the slave masters use guns and call themselves the IRS

George W. Bush and legions of other collectivists and imperialists are
trying to.

He violated the Constitution more than all other presidents combined in less than his first 2 years and nearly got us into WW3 in his first year. And let's not forget that not getting elected didn't stop him from getting in the oval office in 2000.

I didn't say they were bad people and I didn't say all of them. There are a few decent judges out there. But many of them take part in the judicial conspiracy to defend taxation because they are frightened of spilling the apple cart. They don't want to be the judge responsible for ending the fraud of income taxes. And many of them are prevented from even trying by the IRS statutes which state they have no jurisdiction.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As I've said, I have nothing against taxes. I'm only against income taxes. And yes, if someone enslaves or robs me and my loved ones, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone attacks me and my civil rights, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone takes away every avenue for me to challenge the injustice they've done to me, it's enough for me to shoot them. If someone commits extortion against me at the point of a gun and then has the gall to ask for my allegiance, it's enough for me to shoot them. If they murder others around me when they try to stand up for their rights, it's enough for me to shoot them.

When the government doesn't abide by the rules created for the system, how can I use the system to fix government?

First off there are MILLIONS of other Americans who feel like I do. And do you really think the American military will fire on their own families? Even when ordered to do so, very few will. And I'll be armed with a lot more than righteous indignation.

No, I don't have to shoot them. In fact I'd like us to handle the revolution without a single drop of blood spilled or a single person opposing us. It's not going to be me and others like me indiscriminately killing other Americans. We would take over the government and wouldn't kill unless someone opposed us with weapons which we of course anticipate. And they aren't accomplishing anything from within the corrupt system. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I don't call you idiots for not agreeing with me. I call you idiots for your belief that the government has unlimited power and that as long as the general populace wants something, it's within their right to vote for it and have it. And when I call you an idiot, it doesn't go against the idea of all men being created equal. All men aren't of equal skills or capacities, but all are created with equal rights.

Yes, you have the right to have any ideas you wish. But you don't have the right to use legislation to push them on to me or other Americans. The role and powers of government is limited to only what is written in the constitution. And I only want to return America to a Constitutional republic. And as long as you don't oppose that end, you have nothing to
fear.

I certainly have. There are those who will allow themselves to be enslaved and those who will fight for freedom. The founding fathers said that our right to freedom and liberty were more important than our lives.

Ben Franklin said it best...

Well, if you do initiate the revolution, I hope you'll spare President Bush. He's a good man, and doesn't deserve death, even if he does command the army to kill you.[/quote]

There's nothing good about GWB. George W. Bush is the single worst President in American history and he's a coward. He's responsible for the worst attacks on our civil rights in the history of America. He'd be the first one I would take out.

There are no flaws in my logic or my sense of federal law.

Yes. You can spend it on your retirement fund, invest it, or put it in the bank. You can spend it to send your children to better schools that teach what you want them to know. You can get better health coverage. You can give some money to the charities you want to support. You can do all of the unconstitutional things that the government has illegally stuck their noses into and wrecked. You can buy a new house, car, or other products and services that will stimulate the economy and create a thousand jobs for every "defense" job that would have been created otherwise and people would be free to live thier lives their own way without having their hard-earned income stolen from them and pissed away on unconstitutional social programs.

Here's hoping somebody signed his non-initiation of force pledge. You've officially scared the hell out of me.

I guess you're such an ignorant schlub that you didn't even realize there was more to the post. The point is that you won't get anywhere with this "extra" money once inflation takes over. Sure you'll have a nice, cool coupla thousand to kill, but you'll also start seeing interest rates climb sky-high, and staple items will become more that you care to bargain for.

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. :)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, you said with proper procedure and such you don't have to pay. So, you're not having anything pushed on you.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.