Happy Tax Day!

[xoxoxoBruce]

as long as you're willing.

BINGO.

[Radar]

Radar, nothing in your last post made any logical sense. And that's saying something, since you wrote quite a bit.

No, everything I said, especially about natural rights made perfect sense and had logic so solid you can't refute it. Therefore instead of trying, you just dismiss it.

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 haven't committed any crimes. It's not a crime to keep the money I earn, particularly when income taxes are illegal which I and many others have proven countless times. And I haven't committed a crime on this board either. I haven't threatened anyone and everything I've said is protected speech. Although since the government doesn't abide by the Constitution they could arrest me, or you for that matter with or without cause.

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.

The only way I'll see Bubba is if I visit him between his daily rapings of you. And I don't have to worry much about dropping the soap at my house. But if I do, I'll have my sexy Vietnamese wife pick it up for me.

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.

Agreeing to respect the equal rights of others is part of living in a society. It doesn't always happen but that's the goal and those who violate the rights of others can and should be punished.

And it would be completely untenable, to boot.

No, it's extremely tenable. It's logic is undeniable and solid as a rock and a Libertarian government would be extremely easy to uphold, defend, and sustain.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

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.

They DID intend for it to be a blueprint. A blueprint for freedom. And the principles they used to create it are immutable and unchanging. They did know that they didn't know everything and made government able to change through amendments, but not through case law. They created the constitution to be the highest law of the land in all cases and always applicable.

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.

I disagree. Other nations didn't write their constitutions with the same level of freedom, and the ability to change when times change. They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.

The framers of the constitution started off with a double standard and a system where aristocratic landowners had rights - as opposed to all citizens.

As I mentioned, times changed and so did the constitution. But at that time, those with property needed to defend it. They had the most to lose. America has no class struggle. Many point to disparagies between the haves and have-nots and claim it's because the poor are victimized by the wealthy but nothing could be further from the truth.

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?

Blacks and women weren't considered "men" at the time. They were property. But things changed and so did the constitution and the words they used about "all men" are more true now than they have ever been.

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.

Eventually it will. As more jobs go there the economy becomes stronger and salaries go up. Soon you've got a larger skilled worker pool and they can buy American products. Without these jobs most would starve to death.

Furthermore, the jobs that go to foreign nations go there to benefit the shareholders of the corporation.

There's nothing wrong with that. Corporations aren't some big scary monster, it's a bunch of regular people from all walks of life. Housewives, Lawyers, Doctors, and Taxicab drivers all invest thier money and expect a return on their investment. The executives of the corporation have a duty to get their stockholders the most profit they can. Unions have made it impossible for many companies to make a profit in America so they move to somewhere they can pay people a fair salary and they can expect someone to work for 8 hours to get 8 hours worth of pay or 10 hours, 12 hours, or whatever.

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.

3rd world workers aren't being "exploited". They're given work which they wouldn't have had otherwise. They are given an opportunity to survive and they're paid the going rate in those parts of the world. I've personally been to Vietnam and seen people who make an average of $1 day to carry bricks from one side of a busy highway to another on their backs. And these people weren't exploited. They were paid the going rate for unskilled labor in that part of the world. It's unreasonable and ignorant to expect American corporations to pay American salaries in another part of the world or to follow American labor laws.

I'm as against the New World Order as anybody else, but corporations are in business to make profits and their loyalty belongs to their stockholders.

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.

Labor unions aren't responsible for changes in worker safety, shorter work days, or even ending child labor. All of these were done voluntarily by businesses when people boycotted thier products. Nothing speaks louder than money.

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.

Unions are responsible for many companies going bankrupt. Labor costs become so high that the business can't make a profit. And companies are paying for lazy union workers to sit around doing nothing while there's work to be done because they say, "that's not my job".

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.

Even more overwhelming evidence can be provided detailing corruption and socialism in unions. Not to mention Unions want raises even when their productivity doesn't rise and they're costing a company so much they can't remain in business in America.

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.

It's not "greedy" to expect a return on your investment. But I'll agree with the demands of stockholders to make a profit. And they can't make a profit paying inflated labor costs for products that aren't any better than those created by the union workers.

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.

I too value human rights, natural rights, and civil rights and as such I would only kill in the defense of myself, my property, or my country. Even if that means defending my country against my government.

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.

Let's try to be at least a little bit realistic. Telling someone they don't have to work is like telling them not to eat.

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.

Yes, and all of the things you mentioned can be paid for completely without a single penny of income based taxes. I've said many times that I'm not against taxes, just income taxes. And 100% of all the Constitutional parts of government can be paid for with tariffs and excise taxes and that's without stealing a single penny from citizens in the form of income taxes.

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.

Taxes are far from being the "fabric of our society". But all of the things you mentioned are paid for with excise taxes, tariffs, sales, taxes, property taxes, etc. Not one penny of income taxes is required to run a Constitutional federal government. And the operative word in your quote is "some". People are turned into slaves for a third of the year and if they're lucky get 1/100th of what they could have done if they had paid for the services on thier own. Every single thing the government does other than what is enumerated in the Constitution can be better provided at a superior quality and a lower cost by private businesses.

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 agree that America's military isn't a constitutional "defensive" military but rather an imperialistic show of force spread out all over the world like the world's largest bully to push other countries around and make them adopt our policies.

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.

So if someone prints a book with convoluted logic they don't have the right to free speech?

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.

I'll tell you what. Rather than just citing a court case, quote some of it here so we can discuss it. But one thing I can tell you is that the supreme court doesn't add amendments and they can't make less than 36 votes into 36 votes. And there were less than the 36 required votes to pass the 16th amendment. But that's far from being the only way that income taxes are unconstitutional.

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.

The Constitution is the single most perfect thing ever written by humans, including all religious texts like the bible in my personal opinion.

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.

Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.

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

No, but it's why Peter McWilliams and Irv Rueben were both jailed and murdered by the U.S. Government.

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 ).

You can't fix the system from within the system because the government doesn't stick to the rules of the game. The government has government workers on a short leash. They have them by their paychecks so in essence they are slaves to the system.

The argument that Income Taxes are constitutional is well founded and sound.

There is no legal requirement to pay income taxes. The argument that income taxes are constitutional is completely and utterly false. It's a case of outright fraud against the American people and is perpetuated by the corrupt court system.

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.

In practice that's true, but not according to the way things are supposed to be. Case law is supposed to be irrelevant. But both of those fall below natural law which is the highest law of all.

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
I haven't committed any crimes. It's not a crime to keep the money I earn, particularly when income taxes are illegal which I and many others have proven countless times. And I haven't committed a crime on this board either. I haven't threatened anyone and everything I've said is protected speech. Although since the government doesn't abide by the Constitution they could arrest me, or you for that matter with or without cause.

Tell it to the judge.

[wolf]

Well, well, well ... This suddenly got very interesting again!

(*little dance*) Go Scott! Go Scott! Go Scott!

UT ... My money's on Scott. Not to win, as this is not a contest of strength or logic, but to continue to hang out.

[Uryoces]

This thread was originally about paying taxes. April 15th came and went, and the Federal government owes me $94. I've seen arguments about the legality of income taxes. All portions of the Constitution have been eaten away at in some form or another.

So anyway, let's get hypothetical about the specifics. We all seem to have some ideas on what taxes are, where they should come from. We all complain in some form or another. So what should be done ... specifically?

1. What is the tax pie to be made of?
2. What kind of taxes?
3. Who pays the taxes?
4. Are they to be taxes on goods and/or services?
5. Are there any fundamental shifts in the way things are done that if implemented would alter this pie?
6. How tall will the pie be [silly Dubya!]?
7. What is it spent on? [Worms, can, can opener]

Where do we get the money from to run the country, and do it well? Should the nutbar who just wrote this post have this moved to another thread?

[That Guy]

Originally posted by Radar
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.

But being affected is! Learn the difference, you ignoramous.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Uryoces
6. How tall will the pie be [silly Dubya!]?

[Radar]

But being affected is! Learn the difference, you ignoramous.

No it isn't dickhead. Being affected by something doesn't mean you took part in it asswipe.

Does being able to pick out a grammatical error in a small novel I wrote on the fly make you smarter than I am? Not on your best day and my worst.

[That Guy]

Originally posted by Radar


No it isn't dickhead. Being affected by something doesn't mean you took part in it asswipe.

Does being able to pick out a grammatical error in a small novel I wrote on the fly make you smarter than I am? Not on your best day and my worst.

Just because you spread lies among your own differential opinion and worthless ideology doesn't make you any better than the rest of your dissident anti-patriot companions and weak-minded light-weights. I celebrate the day that you realize your misled inner-constitution and egotistical flaws are your greatest enemies, and not your sole weapons.

[ScottSolomon]

Radar,

Your method of argument leaves much to be desired. Basically all you did was refute everything I said - but offered no clarifying arguments to make your position seem more lucid. I am sorry, but I feel that - whatever the argument I use that may disagree with you - you will simply refute it.

I really don't care to play, "I say it is so - so it is so." SO I'll just leave it here:

You are wrong on many levels with regard to globalization, the impact of unions, the power of the working class shareholder, constitutional interpretation, and macromeconomics. I don't really feel like typing a long diatribe about each flawed argument you made. If you feel that this is a victory, so be it. Congratulations.

If, however, you want to get a broader understanding of law, macroeconomics, and the constiution, I think you should take a trip to the library and look for books from authors that are not simply trying to prove that the Libertarian ethos is beyond question.

Thanks

[xoxoxoBruce]

Seems it didn't take ScottSolomon long to realise he was talking to a mule. Smart man.

[Torrere]

Damn. I kept reading this thread. Oops.

Originally posted by Radar
They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.

Radar, do you believe that the right to keep a well organized militia refers to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms or that it refers to having a state militia (currently, the coast guard)? Since the West interprets the term in the former way and the Southeast interprets the term in the second way, which segment of the American population is completely and utterly wrong? How will you go about proving to them that they read the Constitution in a completely and utterly wrong way? What was the original intent of writers of the Constitution -- keeping some military power with the states or allowing the citiZens to remain armed so as to prevent abuses of power by their government? Which words of Jefferson will you use to prove that you are irrefutably correct?

Originally posted by Radar
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.

This one really irked me. Since you emphasized "effected", I believed that you were pointing out poor use of grammar by the person you disagreed with. However, the person you disagreed with used "affected", which is the proper term for the situation. I found it very annoying that you accentuated this.

As I recall, the reason we switched from using largely tariff-based taxes to largely income-based taxes was that we found tariffs to be a cause of dissension (ref: Civil War) and to be bad for business. You seem to be quite pro-business, so why do you want to return to a more detrimental tariff-based taxing system?

(edit: sentence error fixed)

[wolf]

I gotta get in on this here ... The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) IS an individual right.

None of the other rights in the bill of rights refer to collective rights or rights of the state ... they are the rights of the people ... the individual citizens. Why should the 2nd amendment be interpreted any differently.

The 5th US Circuit court HAS affirmed RKBA as an individual right, even if they didn't think that Dr. Emerson retained that right in his case ... US v. Emerson.

There is a very good analysis of the case here.

[Torrere]

Ah! Really? I'll have to keep that in mind then -- so scratch most of the message of my previous post. It looks like the task I challenged Radar to do has already been done for him.

However, I see how you could interpret it differently: "a well regulated militia" (oops, I used the wrong word in my previous post) might indicate that it applies to a state army of private citizens. There were also many more advocates of state's rights and freedoms in face of the federal government than there are now.

However, I find it interesting that the article says that the 2nd Amendment was largely interpreted as endorsing state militias for a few decades (and that this view is still held in some Circuits), rather than individual possession of weapons. Looking at the text of the Amendment, it looks to me like both are true. I attempted to bold text that I felt possibly indicated state militias, and italicize text that I felt possibly indicated private gun ownership.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(edit: added why the quote is bold and italic)

[Whit]

Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.

     If this line makes sesnse to you then you have no clue what actual slavery is, so this is pointless.

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?

     This may well be the closest you come in this entire thread to asking about anyone elses opinions...
     To answer your question yes, I would oppose you. The reason is that I don't believe that you would "return it to a constitutional republic." Everything you've posted to this point makes you sound like a fanatic. I don't trust fanatics, no matter how good what they say sounds. That's exactly how the Spanish Inquistion and Hitler came to power. You have shown no sign of hearing anything anyone has said to you.
     Frankly, I think that if someone like you did take over you would feel it was necessary to maintain the position to "insure our freedom." You want proof?

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.

     In this statement you belittle everyone not like you to the point of insignifigance. It's also sounds like you've got a lot of hate in your heart. No, I don't trust you. You are a fanatic, with false claims of your values. If you actually believed that all men are created equal you couldn't think in such terms.

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.

     So, a decent judge can decide to make unconstitutional rulings? Didn't expect you to say that.

You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.
http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html

     Taken from that site:

Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under "protectionism" you end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need

     But you had previously said:

But many people don't know that the constitutional parts of government can be paid with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected

     So, to tariff or not to tariff? Which is it?