Not exactly, because when you say "thou shalt" you are quoting King James Version biblical reference to the Commandments that came directly from God. That is not a comparable inference. Our government is not God. We are talking here about the laws of man, not God. The government is us. We made those laws. If we don't like them, our option is to vote out our representatives and vote in representatives who will pass laws we agree with. If we are in the minority, we may obey or disobey the laws enacted by the majority. If we choose to disobey them, then we must accept the consequences, for this is the choice we made.
What term should we use when a cop in the line of duty draws his gun and fires at a suspect running at him with a machete and kills him? Does a recognition of distinction between a lawful killing in self defense, and 'murder' represent a submission to statist authority, or does it reflect an important distinction? Is it proper for crowds of people to scream "MURDERER" at him because it reflects the sense of victimhood members of his family feel? I think not. I think the distinction between lawful use of lethal force, and unlawful use of lethal force matters a great deal and that the fact a DA as a government agent says what he did not in any way constitute a breach that we call 'murder' should matter a lot. he is not a murderer and all the efforts by a mob of angry supporters of his family, to label his conduct murder, are an affront and they degrade an important boundary. Words matter and they should matter.
You could have denied my comments but to your credit, you did not. To wit: But to discuss what you did say. Actually, one might assume I think that way, but one would not be correct. I in fact value words like few others do. I credit that to my college studies of law. I believe many Americans accept it that the laws are unjust. Some they called unjust, I named. Some will blindly obey unjust laws. i also commented on that. I would hope they realize the best time to worry about an unjust law, is when it is still the law. Some say terrible things about the Patriot act and catch less flack than I do over discussing the income tax. Let me add what T Coleman Andrews said about the income tax. He was a Commissioner over the IRS. http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/1A40BDA52660223E8525803700431AFC?OpenDocument Let me also toss in Joe Bannister ---- I also met Joe Banister and Sherry Jackson, both suffered at the hands of the IRS http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/ Joe worked for the IRS in law enforcement and his family are in law enforcement
OK, lets look at the term .... LAW that Never was? Do you obey such a law? [video=youtube;A5ioP-hV2E8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ioP-hV2E8[/video]
You want services, it comes with a price tag attached to it and taxes are how we pay for things in this country.
I have not said that laws are by definition just, or that laws should be sanctified with holy oils and worshiped. but theft is a legal term and taxation cannot fall within its purview , just as 'murder' is a legal term and a use of lethal force in self defense, cannot fall within its purview even though it may be a deliberate act of killing another person. I can cite some nice propaganda pieces by the BLM movement which attempt to muddy those waters for affect. I think calling a cop a murderer when the DA's office says it was an act of self defense is wrong. We may need to tweak our definitions so that they better correspond with our societal expectations, but lets not allow people to throw out terms like murderer, or thief or abuser unfettered by common meaning.
You had me right up until the bold. Think about that second paragraph, how glaringly less tenable it is than the first. "The government is us" I am not the government. You are not the government. You and I together are not the government. How is the government "us"? "We made those laws" I didn't make any of them. Did you? "If we don't like them, our option is to vote out our representatives and vote in representatives who will pass laws we agree with" I would like to represent myself. If that is not an option, I may be able to think of a few other people I might trust to represent me. Do you think there's a chance someone I trust might become my representative to the government? Do you, personally, really believe that we can all choose representatives we agree with? "If we are in the minority, we may obey or disobey the laws enacted by the majority. If we choose to disobey them, then we must accept the consequences, for this is the choice we made." Yeah, I think that's what they mean by "Tyranny of the Majority". Look, what we're asking for is a justification of the forcible taking called taxation. You believe that forcible taking is wrong in most cases. Why do you make an exception when an entity seen as the government does it?
Yes. I don't see that the government is entitled to a large chunk, or any chunk, of money paid for work performed. It's a stretch to say that government provided that employment, unless maybe we're speaking specifically of government work. As we all know, though, this form of taxation exists to enable deficit spending. We don't pay for government so much as finance its ever-growing debt.
Because, while our system may not be perfect, I support it. Taxation is necessary unless, of course, you are an anarchist. Are you? If not, then government must be funded somehow, and the only way I know to fund it is through taxation. If you go up into the Rockies and live off the land like Jeremiah Johnson, with no outside assistance or commerce, perhaps you don't need taxation. Otherwise, you do benefit from the services of government. Roads, fire protection, schools, law enforcement, the creation of legal tender backed by the government. Perhaps you don't need any of that. But if you do, your taxes help make it possible. Those taxes are laws enacted by our representatives, for better or worse. If we don't like our representatives, there is a system in place to get rid of them, and we should use it.
I like having a military, public libraries, public schools, public services such as running water, sewage treatment plants, garbage service, and electricity, Police, Fire Department, building standards, mass transit, public transportation, roads, highways and major highways to bring me toothpaste, toilet paper and food. And of course this can't be managed without government workers and buildings. So NO, taxes aren't theft. They're an investment in a highly functioning civilized society. Otherwise, we'd all be running around like animals. Who wants that?
Noted That's just not true. My being or not being an anarchist has no bearing on whether taxation is necessary. What you're really trying to say here is that you believe taxation to be necessary. I don't believe it myself, but I understand that you do. Again, you're conflating what we believe about the possibilities for governance with those possibilities themselves. Either taxation is necessary, in which case government must be funded, or it isn't. One of those is true irrespective of what either of us believes. But why think taxation is necessary? Obviously, we need law, dispute resolution, and law enforcement. If we can have those things without taxation, then taxation is not necessary. The thing is, all of them can be, and have been, provided without taxation. So, taxation is not necessary.
I like having stuff too, but forcibly taking money from people is still theft even if I use that money to get the stuff I like.
OK, I probably am guilty of coming here with a nuclear weapon vs those who have bb guns. If you watched Joe Banister's video, you ought to have a brand new appreciation that the law you obey simply is not law. Thus when they take your money, by threat of force, it is theft. Were it really a law, that is different. I suggest you all watch the movie called From Freedom to Fascism. The IRS is asked over and over to produce the law forcing you to pay income taxes. Look, to catch up to me, you must learn a lot more than you know. I present a movie some of you heard of, most if not all never seen. [video=youtube;O6ayb02bwp0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0[/video]
I agree that is a reasonable position. If I want you to double your payments to the IRS,. and I threaten you, is that theft? If I tell you I am an IRS agent, does that mean you must comply? Do you believe that the first rule of Government is to actually pass laws? I think I believe that. I know I do.
I am not certain how much of the cops revenue is paid to them by the Feds, but I do know states and cities supply a lot of money for police work. Maybe I need to call them police workers to cover everybody that does any sort of work for the police to do their jobs. So, my problem is not that I don't support the cops, it is that I do not believe there is an income tax law forcing you to pay the IRS. I believe though we think there is that law, we never studied this. I happen to have studied this. Joe Banister whom i met around 2001 carried a gun to prosecute tax evaders. I do not have his level of knowledge about the IRS and the tax law, but listen to him. He graduated as a CPA. Got hired as a gun toting artist to nail tax evaders. And nailed them he did. For at least 5 years. But he learned things. And now he teaches those things. Tell me I am full of malarkey but can you tell that to Joe Banister? Then you need to watch the movie by Aaron Russo, sadly now dead. but I posted the link to America Freedom to Fascism so all of you can watch and then judge for yourself. Jurors believed Joe Banister so his ideas are tested in a court of law. The man is a hero. Sherry Jackson is one too and they put her into prison. A true hero goes to prison when the cause is right. She could have escaped prison.
Very well stated. I hope the crickets open up and give us data we all can use. [video=youtube;N6uVV2Dcqt0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0[/video]
Illustration only ... If I hire you to do landscaping for a day And you agree And the deal is you get a dozen bags of potatos Why would you pay taxes? Then next day you seek the money potatos cost. Why would you pay taxes? I gained nothing. You did not either. I got landscaping, but I am not plants You got food but you supplied work We exchanged But you got no income Can you see that? Most vital though is there must be a law. But you can ask IRS till Hades freezes over and they will refuse to show you any law. I mean let you look at it. They will never give you a written copy.
I am not watching a fifty minute libertarian video that tries to prove yet again that the federal government cannot levy an income tax despite court decisions to the contrary, any more than I will watch a video that asserts that HIV is not a virus, that the Mafia and the Cubans and LBJ tried to kill Kennedy, or that we did not land on the moon. SCOTUS already decided you are wrong. Stop whining.http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htmhttp://taxfoundation.org/blog/law-says-we-have-pay-federal-income-tax A levy of tax is a payment for governance. If you don't like the deal, leave the taxing entity to one without a government. But you cannot live in the taxing district for a year and then another and then another , and then scream and shout 'no deal' Your presence is deemed consent to be governed by the legislative executive and judicial branches, and to be taxed to fund the government institutions. You have already eaten the steak by staying in the district. You do not get to refuse to pay for the steak. If you do not pay your taxes, you are guilty of theft of service, so stop playing foolish games and posting lengthy videos by whiners and libertarian lawyers with nothing else to do and pay consistent with your inherent obligation as a citizen. The income tax is no different from a sales tax, an excise tax, or a property tax. They are all legal.
I bet then from your perch, you can post for all of us the law. Can you do that? IRS can't do it. Why do they refuse? You can go into a court of law and the Judge will not force IRS to provide the law. I hope you feel much better now that you got your sanctimonious lecture posted.
yep and Obama never really supplied sufficient proof he was not born in Hawaii. Here peruse this IRS document from 2015. https://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxpros/The%20Truth%20Jan%202015.pdf Its only 64 pages of rebuttals and citations for all those frivolous arguments libertarians like to cook up subdivided by 'contention' for your edification. They call this 'settled law' for a reason. The fact that you disagree with specific appellate court decisions holding the 16th amendment and the IRS collections method constitutional , does not turn the income tax into theft. Its time to grow up and pick battles you have not already lost.
Here is a couple of my personal favorite 'arguments ' to defang the IRS. Contention:Taxpayer is not a “person” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws. The IRS deals with that on page 20. Or this one. 2. Contention: The “United States”consists only of the District of Columbia,federal territories, and federal enclaves. an IRS lawyer actually had to spend tax dollars writing a rebuttal on page 18 to make people like Robert happy. It probably did not work, but it works for tax court judges who have most likely decided after much angst, that Maryland and Oklahoma are considered part of the United States .
Taxes cannot be "theft" because you are the beneficiary of the services paid for by thos taxes. Since this is a representative republic you don't get to decide what the tax rates should be either, your representatives are elected to make that decision on your behalf. You get to choose different representatives if you don't like their rates. Calling taxes "theft" exposes a fundamental lack of comprehension as to how society functions and the basics of the Constitution.
