Happy Tax Day!

[wolf]

whit asked:
Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?

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

[Whit]

     This is what you said.

The group that I'm a part of has a team of lawyers and represents people all the way to the supreme court.

     This is what you say you said.

I haven't lied. I said we would represents people all the way to the supreme court and we will.

     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.

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.

     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.

No, I said INCOME taxation.

     This still leaves out half the story. It's still a half-truth at best. A half truth is still not the truth.

You're a liar. You have no friends.

     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!

[Radar]

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.'

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.

This still leaves out half the story. It's still a half-truth at best. A half truth is still not the truth.

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.

[Whit]

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.

     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.

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[Radar]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[Whit]

I want no such thing. i don't want to force anything on anyone

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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"?

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.

[juju]

Originally posted by Whit
     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.
     It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.

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.
[..]

[juju]

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.

[Undertoad]

It took you guys 9 minutes to have that conversation.

[juju]

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

[Radar]

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

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.

(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.

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.

[Cam]

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.