Happy Tax Day!

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
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?

No, I don't believe that. I believe that rights are a moral construct. Government physically exists because it actually cooresponds to something physical. Rights don't exist physically, they are ideas that correspond to nothing that you can ever objectively prove exists. Therefore, it's silly to say that people have them when they're born. It's like saying someone has "2+2". It's just dumb. When people say that they have a right to something, they are really asserting their form of morality. Rights aren't physical, they're an agreed upon ideology.

This rights argument will go nowhere, though, because it's like trying to prove that God exists. You'll try to insist that the burden of proof is on me to disprove God/Rights, and I'll try to insist the opposite.

[Cam]

And the circle continues

[Undertoad]

What if there is a social contract of some sort? The hardass approach says there isn't. I really don't know; I haven't put in the hard thinking on it. But the uncertainty alone is enough to start the leak.

Some of my bigger questions are in this thread. One principle of a legitimate government is consent of the governed. If a "100%" libertarian government were elected overnight, it would not have that consent.

That's why Radar requires a revolution -- avoiding, btw, the obvious question of what happens on day two to non-representative governments. Even if he uses the full force of the military to back up his coup, in the long run the people still have more power than he does.

But the really gaping hole that the sunlight is beaming through is evident from this thread. Radar has applied the philosophy to the nth degree, and what has boiled out of it is completely impractical. Its defense requires very obvious blind spots, its common sense appeal is near zero... and everyone here knows that it will not actually happen.

If it could never happen, or could never survive if it did, it is not the answer.

Part of the problem is a huge gap between political philosophy and politics. Or, if you prefer, "how things oughta be" against "how things just are". Ignoring the latter is simply not an option.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

You misunderstand my statement. I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about foreigners in foreign countries where they make all the stuff we'd buy with all this extra money. This increase in spending wouldn't create jobs here, but that's a whole different thread.

[Torrere]

Radar has become nonsensical. I might stop reading this thread now.

=[

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
How did Hinkley, or Booth, or the others get past them?

Hinkley did not kill Reagan. He completely failed in his objective (thanks to the Secret Service, God Bless Them). President Lincoln had NO security at Ford's Theater, so I'm not even sure why you bring that up.

Today, our government officials are highly protected and basically invincible. You're just one man, and history shows that there's no way you could accomplish what you say you will.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

[Whit]

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

     An interesting statement since you're the one talking about doing some killing.
     Ya know, on this part where you start claiming "All most all Americans," doesn't everyone find it interesting that I'm using specific examples of people and Radar's making a generalization that he assurers us is a fact?

This situation is EXACTLY the same as Slavery. In fact it IS slavery.

     Oh, so slaves only worked for their master 1/4 of the year? And got to go out to parties and other entertainment forums, as well as having freedom of speech? No? Ah, then you be linking to a greater evil, as I said. By the by, compiling the years taxes to make it sound like we receive no pay check for a large portion of the year was a nice touch. That's not the way it works though.

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.

     So, instead of killing for us how 'bout you just let the ones that want your help join you?

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.

     But I thought you'd made it clear that your movement had never lost? So then, if they join you they're safe. No need for war.

I didn't say they were bad people and I didn't say all of them. There are a few decent judges out there.

There are no good people in the government

     So, which is it? The judicial branch is a part of government after all.

If they oppose us, they're not good people.

     Riiiiight, 'cause you've got that purity and the light and those kitten's on your side.

And I wouldn't expect to kill the people I plan to free, only those who would oppose me in doing it.

     Oh okay, as long as we're free by your rules you won't kill us. Gee thanks.

     By the by, please deal with any pro-Bush sentiments apart from your responses to me. I've already said I dislike the guy, and pointed you to an earlier Cellar thread where I've said so before. Getting anti-Bush with me makes it seem like I'm pro-Bush. Don't do that.. I assume that most Cellar Dwellers have read other threads and know my feelings on the sub, but still that's not me.

[Radar]

No, I don't believe that. I believe that rights are a moral construct. Government physically exists because it actually cooresponds to something physical. Rights don't exist physically, they are ideas that correspond to nothing that you can ever objectively prove exists.

Government is a social construct and not a tangible physical thing. It's nothing more than a label for a group of people. People however, do physically exist and so do their natural rights. Natural rights are part of natural law and are as immutable and undeniable as other natural laws like gravity. Even if every person on earth voted to get rid of gravity they couldn't do it. And the same is true of natural rights. They can't be taken or given away. Natural law and natural rights are a science like any other but are apparant to even very small children.

If you don't believe in natural rights such as your right to live, than I wouldn't be committing a crime if I killed you. I wouldn't be violating your right to live since you have none. And there can be no such thing as a crime since nobody's rights are being violated by any action. Nobody would even have a right to complain when they were victimized.

This rights argument will go nowhere, though, because it's like trying to prove that God exists. You'll try to insist that the burden of proof is on me to disprove God/Rights, and I'll try to insist the opposite.

It's nothing like trying to prove god exists because there is no physical being of god but there are physical and tangible beings of people and people out of necessity and reason have rights at birth. You can keep the burden of proof on me because I've proven my point. But you don't have to take my word for it.

It's become painfully clear that you don't do much reading but if you'll read any of the links I posted earlier you'll see a lot of great thinkers proving that natural rights exist. It's even in our own declaration of independence as a self-evident truth. But you can read the works of hundreds of people in every culture on earth for thousands of years talking about how even small children know that natural and inalienable rights exist.

One principle of a legitimate government is consent of the governed. If a "100%" libertarian government were elected overnight, it would not have that consent.

A 100% Libertarian government would be a 100% Constitutional government and as such it would be the government consented to by the people for more than 200 years.

That's why Radar requires a revolution -- avoiding, btw, the obvious question of what happens on day two to non-representative governments. Even if he uses the full force of the military to back up his coup, in the long run the people still have more power than he does.

Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights. The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government. And as the Declaration of Independence says,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You misunderstand my statement. I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about foreigners in foreign countries where they make all the stuff we'd buy with all this extra money. This increase in spending wouldn't create jobs here, but that's a whole different thread.

And you misunderstand Free Trade vs. Protectionism. When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products. Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America.

You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.

http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html

Radar has become nonsensical. I might stop reading this thread now.

Sorry you feel that way, I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.

Hinkley did not kill Reagan. He completely failed in his objective (thanks to the Secret Service, God Bless Them).

His objective was to shoot Reagan and he did. The fact that he was a bad shot is irrelevant. People killed Kennedy too. May the Easter Bunny bless you.

Today, our government officials are highly protected and basically invincible. You're just one man, and history shows that there's no way you could accomplish what you say you will.

History shows that several men have made it past the secret service and who says I'd be alone?

An interesting statement since you're the one talking about doing some killing.

I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me. Executing Bush would be defense also because he is endangering America and the rest of the world, and attacking our civil rights in America.

Oh, so slaves only worked for their master 1/4 of the year?

No, but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year (which amounts to about 1/4 of our lives). Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.

And got to go out to parties and other entertainment forums, as well as having freedom of speech?

Guess what? You don't have freedom of speech in America. Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it.

So, instead of killing for us how 'bout you just let the ones that want your help join you?

What do you mean killing you? I said I'd only kill those who oppose me and those like me when we take over the government and return it to a constitutional republic. Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth? If not, you don't have anything to fear. And there are millions like me so don't worry, people are joining me. There were only about 5% of the population involved in the 1st revolution and the rest didn't take part but reaped the rewards of freedom anyway. My guess is you'll be in the 95%.

But I thought you'd made it clear that your movement had never lost? So then, if they join you they're safe. No need for war.

No, I made it clear that none of the students of the particular place where I work have ever lost. The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail. Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved. They are scared of those who really value freedom.

So, which is it? The judicial branch is a part of government after all.

Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes. Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law. Rather than standing up, they think of their political careers and rule poorly. That means they're not good people. They may be a decent judge, but not a good person.

Riiiiight, 'cause you've got that purity and the light and those kitten's on your side.

No, just truth, justice, freedom, liberty, the law, and millions of freedom lovers.

Oh okay, as long as we're free by your rules you won't kill us. Gee thanks.

Not my rules. The rules that established this country. Those that define and limit the role and powers of government.

By the by, please deal with any pro-Bush sentiments apart from your responses to me.

As if I'd make a separate response just for your comfort. Get real. I'll write my responses to everyone. Don't be so vain as to think my posts were just for you.

[Cam]

The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail. Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved.

Radar you've crossed a line, shut the fuck up.

edit: sorry was a little ticked off about other things at this point and this line just pissed me off. Though I do think you've crossed the line to insanity Radar.

[juju]

Radar, <i>nothing</i> in your last post made any logical sense. And that's saying something, since you wrote quite a bit. You are a lunatic and a criminal. You've not only admitted to committing one federal crime, but you've committed a second federal crime twice on this very board!

I sincerely hope that you get caught before you kill somebody. Or that you're only joking. Either way, say hello to Bubba for me. And don't drop the soap.

[joemama]

This is an interesting thread. I have not read all the previous posts, so I hope you don't think I am using bad netiquette when I pick up the converstion from it's current locale.

I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They depend upon mutual respect for each others human rights - for them to have any real meaning.

But as I read alittle more of Radar's posts, I feel like my opinions diverge greatly from his.

A 100% Libertarian government would be a 100% Constitutional government and as such it would be the government consented to by the people for more than 200 years.

And it would be completely untenable, to boot. The framers of the consitution did not intent it to be a blueprint, they intended it to be a general idea. They knew that times would change and issues would change, but the main idea would remain.

There are many other nations that wrote strict consitutions that functioned as the architectural plan for the government - that eventually had to be scrapped because times changed, technology changed, and the economy changed. Strict constructionsim is fantastic - in theory - but in practice it would be inflexxible, unadaptable, and it would fail to meet the needs of the people.

Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights.

From the bottom up it certainly looks that way. From the top down, the picture is different. The framers of the constitution started off with a double standard and a system where aristocratic landowners had rights - as opposed to all citizens. They designed America in such a way that it would always have a ruling elite. The ruling elite have maintained a stranglehold on the American government ever since. If you ask them, the government represents the ideals of the people because few of them can see beyond their strata. Many in the middle class have been convinced that they are a part of America's controlling elite, which makes them choose policies that do not necessarily end up benefiting them or anyone in their socioeconomic position. Simply shifting to a stict constructionist government would not change this order. The only way to change this order would be to radically restructure the government into a true liberal democracy. I outlined such a shift in this thread.

The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government.

This is as true now as it was in 1778. But it was better than a monarchy at the time - now, I think we should rethink things.

And as the Declaration of Independence says,

It also said "all men are created equal". Obviously, the founders started the union with a bit of hypocricy. Can you accept that the people that wrote those words were not writing them for all men? If they were not really writing them for all men, is it possible that they may not have had the golden key to truth and light - that you seem to think resides in strict adherance to the letter of the constitution?

When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products.

This is simplistic and wrong on many levels. First, a job in Managua is not going to pay a worker anywhere near anough money to buy even the cheapest American products. Furthermore, the jobs that go to foreign nations go there to benefit the shareholders of the corporation. This focuses returns into the hands of a tiny segment of the overall population of America. These people want to continue to see high returns and they encourage further exploitation of cheap third-world labor. This is the basic goal of the globalization movement.

Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America

This is debatable. If there had never been a labor movement in America, the middle class may not exist. Worker safety would never have been an issue, and benefits packages would not exist for the working class. Yes, unions have created a confrontational relationship between labor and management,but they both have a symbiotic interest in maintaining market share and success of a company. As overwhelming evidence can attest, most unions are willing to be very flexible with their compensation and demands in times of recession and national emergency.

Unions, are not the cause of a company's flight south of the border. The demands of the stockholders, market bifurcation, the overall economy, and greed combine as a great incentive to set up shop in a third world nation.

The link you provided was simplistic and was not accurate about a lot of the interelated issues of tariffs, free trade, and general macroeconomics.

I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.

Why am I reminded of something Bertrand Russell said?

I agree that the magic bullet theory is malarkey. But that is for another thread.

I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me.

The brownshirts may be coming to get you. I would not advocate killing anybody - to me, assasination of a person because of their myopic political positions would completely fly in the face of everything I believe about human rights and democratic values.

but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year

This is such a weak canard. You are not being enslaved for any period of time. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't get a job. You are not chained to gang and forced to pick cotton.

Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. If you go to work and drive on a road, your taxes paid for that. If you kids go to the park, your taxes paid for that. If you own a share of stock, your taxes keep the markets sound. If you can sleep well at night - not worrying about a Canadian invasion, your taxed paid for that. If you get mugged and beat up - the cops come because your taxes paid them to come. If you don't have to get your water from the local creek, your taxes paid of that. If the poor are not rising up wanting a redistribution of wealth, your taxes paid for that. If your brother did not die in a care wreck - even though he had no insurance, your taxes paid for that.

Taxes pay for all the things we can't see - but make up the fabric of our society. So any time you hear someone scream about being a slave for 110 days a year, remind them that they, too, receive some benefit from all their labor.

That being said, I am appalled at the current fiscal and spending policies. We need to massivley overhaul the government and eliminate as much of the extra detritus that we can. I do not think that eliminating all taxes and resorting to a sales tax is realistic in any sense. If this was put in place, our society would collapse, and products would be so expensive that they stifle economic growth.

Personally I think we need to get rid of our iron ring of military might - that girds the world. This will never happen, because our military is part of the threat we use against third world nations to maintain our access to their resources at a cheap price. I would like the rich to be taxed more heavily than they currently are. I think the middle class should be taxed much less than they currently are, and the poor should not be taxed at all. This is a subject for another thread - though.

You don't have freedom of speech in America

I beg to differ. Didn't you just post a comment about killing the president? Do you think you could do that in Iran, Turkey, China, or Egypt?

Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it

I read The Federal Mafia and The Great Income Tax Hoax when I was younger, stupider, and leaning toward the lbertarian ethos. The guy's convoluted "logic" and distortion convinced me that his ideas were drivel. Look up the Supreme Court's decision in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 406, 415. They make it clear that income tax is constitutionally valid.

And in any case, the constitution is not the be all end all fount of knowledge and truth. It was the general idea that started the union. 200 years of case law and legal wrangling have refined the definition of the govenrment's powers. The Constitution is not absolute.

Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth?

Ease up Don Qixote, the windmills in here are not the real giants. Personally, I think you might want to expand your base of knowledge. You seem relatively well informed, but also seem pretty credulous. I would encourage you to skeptically examine every point of view you encounter - including your own.

There were only about 5% of the population involved in the 1st revolution and the rest didn't take part but reaped the rewards of freedom anyway.

I am going to have to disagree with you there. the American revolution affected all of the colonies, and there was plenty of tragedy and pain paid by most of the American population. They reaped the rewards of liberty, but it took a long time and a lot of lives to make America what it is today.

The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail.

That is why Harry Browne and Noam Chomsky are sitting in the Hooskow.

The government is holding a lot of people in prison without cause, charges, or legal representaion. but they are not their because they wrote a book that people in power did not like. I hope we can avoid letting things go that far, but I fear the possibility nonetheless.

house niggers like you

Huh? There is a difference between rampant reveolutionary idealism - which is pretty naive if you have not thought it through - and working within the system to make things better. Just because a person is trying to work within the system does not mean that they are somehow a slave to the system or that they simply aquiesce to the govenment's point of view ( though I think a lot of brownshirts are like this ).

Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes

Or maybe their logic extended beyond "I say it must be so - so it must be so". I am no fan of stupid legal decisions, or judges that participate in the degradation of freedom and liberty, but some arguments are sound. The argument that Income Taxes are constitutional is well founded and sound.

Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law.

There are 2 types of law. Case law and constitutional law. Case law bases decisions on consideration of issues as they pertain to the constitution and other judges previous decisions. Since the law is a fluid entity - and it is always changing, judges use other judges' opinions and rulings to form their positions. Constitutional law is the consideration of whether a law actually falls within the bounds of the constitution. Some cases are decided using case law - which includes constitutional agreement, other cases are decided based on the basic issues of freedom entailed in the Constitution.

they think of their political careers and rule poorly

Federal judges are appointed for life. They may make decisions based on a political stance, but their decisions are based upon their own personal ideology - not a fear of loosing their job.

The rules that established this country

We already know those rules were not perfect or absolute. I think your reasoning is pretty shaky on all of this.

[Undertoad]

If it's Scott vs Radar at this point, the rest of us can safely depart the thread -- and there's a good chance we'll never hear from either one of them, ever again.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable

Maybe in "civilized society" but in the jungle you get what you can win and hold. Nothing more.

[joemama]

here's a good chance we'll never hear from either one of them, ever again

What, are you trying to say I am long-winded?!?!?!

i agree xoxoxoxoxoxBruce.

[juju]

Not only that, but there's the fact that if there's one constant in the universe, it's that Radar will never stop arguing with you as long as you're willing.