Let's see how far this tax protestor/ evader goes with arguments

[Deborah K]

The law is right here, you either didn't look or don't recognize it. Very typical for somebody who believes he is above it.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

You are missing the whole point. The issue revolves around the definition of "income". "Income" is not the same thing as "wages".

 

[hazek]

The law is right here, you either didn't look or don't recognize it. Very typical for somebody who believes he is above it.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

If all men are created equal, and one man can only govern another by his explicit consent, how come no one asked me for my consent to agree to this law you speak off? Aren't I just a slave to those who say I have to obey what is essentially their opinion?

 

[onlyrp]

If all men are created equal, and one man can only govern another by his explicit consent, how come no one asked me for my consent to agree to this law you speak off? Aren't I just a slave to those who say I have to obey what is essentially their opinion?

"IF", but I never said such a thing, you didn't hear that from either me or Frankrep. So don't ask me about something I neither said nor agreed with. But no, you're not just a slave to those who say you must obey, you're (effectively) a slave to those who threaten you with force, it doesn't matter where their rules come from.

 

[hazek]

So it is your belief we are not all equal? Well then, that perfectly explains your posts, you just think some of you are masters and some of us are slaves and have to do as we are told by you. Well I say fuck that, bring it on.

 

[Deborah K]

"IF", but I never said such a thing, you didn't hear that from either me or Frankrep. So don't ask me about something I neither said nor agreed with. But no, you're not just a slave to those who say you must obey, you're (effectively) a slave to those who threaten you with force, it doesn't matter where their rules come from.

Oh, but it DOES matter where their rules come from. The DOI specifically states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.

That means the government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

 

[hazek]

"IF", but I never said such a thing, you didn't hear that from either me or Frankrep. So don't ask me about something I neither said nor agreed with. But no, you're not just a slave to those who say you must obey, you're (effectively) a slave to those who threaten you with force, it doesn't matter where their rules come from.

Let me quote you, before you make another attempt of propaganda making your outrageous position sound better.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You are missing the whole point. The issue revolves around the definition of "income". "Income" is not the same thing as "wages".

^^^This (+ rep).

Within a generation of the passage of the income tax, definitions blurred the distinction between income and salaries/wages into nebulous oblivion with an ever-widening lasso. Each successively blurred distinction nullified, in effect, your right to the value of your own labor, which Congress now has the power statutorily impute, through income tax law, to be essentially valueless (or whatever value they decide) - the only thing that is always of 100% real value is what you receive in exchange for your labor.

Income was originally "net profit", intended to tax rich businessmen (at a whopping 1%, and perish the slippery slope fallacy that income would ever include common wages, or that taxes could reach the unthinkable 10%). Note that the original schedules for income tax only considered NET profit as taxable income (not the all-inclusive tentacles of "adjust gross income" that would later come). How do you accomplish "net income" with labor, except for the taxpayer himself to distinguish between gross and net? Need to have government step in and decide for everyone what counts as an "itemized decuction" or "tax credit". And the degree to which wages and salaries are considered "taxable income", is the degree to which your labor is imputed as being worth ZERO, while 100% of what you receive in exchange for that labor is pure profit.

A good read on how that nasty camel went from nose in the tent to fully and destructively inside the tent, with the meddling and blurring of the income/wages line, by deception and degree, can be read HERE.

Once again, proof that abrogation of individual liberty occurs through a game of legislative S-E-M-A-N-T-I-C-S, in an INSANE WORLD where the truly nefarious, along with their blitheringly useful idiot dependents, can, with straight faces, argue that:

Income = Wages
Money = Debt
Inflation = Net effect on prices, pay no attention to the root causes - just point lots of fingers and argue and fight amongst yourselves
Fictitious = Tangible = Derivatives = Physical
Rights = Entitlements
Defense = Offense = Unprovoked Attacks

...and anyone who says otherwise is kooky, old-fashioned, behind the times, selfish, isolationist, or "living in a bubble".

 

[dude58677]

The law is right here, you either didn't look or don't recognize it. Very typical for somebody who believes he is above it.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

You onlyrp or rpaul69 or whatever the your name is. YOU the IRS agent think you are above the law. And don't take the moral ground claiming that I'm dishonest because I call it like I see it that you are an IRS agent.

 

[dude58677]

I wonder what lies onlyrp is going to come up with next time around. Of course he is going to come back.

 

[Deborah K]

^^^This (+ rep).

Within a generation of the passage of the income tax, definitions blurred the distinction between income and salaries/wages into nebulous oblivion with an ever-widening lasso. Each successively blurred distinction nullified, in effect, your right to the value of your own labor, which Congress now has the power statutorily impute, through income tax law, to be essentially valueless (or whatever value they decide) - the only thing that is always of 100% real value is what you receive in exchange for your labor.

Income was originally "net profit", intended to tax rich businessmen (at a whopping 1%, and perish the slippery slope fallacy that income would ever include common wages, or that taxes could reach the unthinkable 10%). Note that the original schedules for income tax only considered NET profit as taxable income (not the all-inclusive tentacles of "adjust gross income" that would later come). How do you accomplish "net income" with labor, except for the taxpayer himself to distinguish between gross and net? Need to have government step in and decide for everyone what counts as an "itemized decuction" or "tax credit". And the degree to which wages and salaries are considered "taxable income", is the degree to which your labor is imputed as being worth ZERO, while 100% of what you receive in exchange for that labor is pure profit.

A good read on how that nasty camel went from nose in the tent to fully and destructively inside the tent, with the meddling and blurring of the income/wages line, by deception and degree, can be read HERE.

Once again, proof that abrogation of individual liberty occurs through a game of legislative S-E-M-A-N-T-I-C-S, in an INSANE WORLD where the truly nefarious, along with their blitheringly useful idiot dependents, can, with straight faces, argue that:

Income = Wages
Money = Debt
Inflation = Net effect on prices, pay no attention to the root causes - just point lots of fingers and argue and fight amongst yourselves
Fictitious = Tangible = Derivatives = Physical
Rights = Entitlements
Defense = Offense = Unprovoked Attacks

...and anyone who says otherwise is kooky, old-fashioned, behind the times, selfish, isolationist, or "living in a bubble".

Brava!!!

 

[onlyrp]

So it is your belief we are not all equal? Well then, that perfectly explains your posts, you just think some of you are masters and some of us are slaves and have to do as we are told by you. Well I say fuck that, bring it on.

I misunderstood you, you seem to be referring to "equal" in the sense that one is equal in face of the law (and not speaking of each person being unique). I believe people are all born different and unique, but I don't believe anybody is born a master or slave, at least not without the context of environment.

 

[onlyrp]

I wonder what lies onlyrp is going to come up with next time around. Of course he is going to come back.

Aside from your allegation that I am lying about not being an IRS agent, where and how have I lied?

 

[dude58677]

Aside from your allegation that I am lying about not being an IRS agent, where and how have I lied?

We already answered your questions and debunked your arguments, then you bring it up again as though it was never addressed. That is lying.

 

[Steven Douglas]

I don't believe anybody is born a master or slave, at least not without the context of environment.

No illusions here, I know that I was born a slave to slave parents, as were my children. In the context of economic and political environment, of course. A fiat wealth siphoning treadmill treadmill to pay for an assload of inherited odius debt that can only be repaid by exponentially greater assloads of future inherited debt.

 

[onlyrp]

We already answered your questions and debunked your arguments, then you bring it up again as though it was never addressed. That is lying.

Since you're likely going to keep calling me an agent, it probably doesn't matter. But I am sorry if I have missed any responses from you, I tried to acknowledge all responses when posted, even if I didn't get to fully read it, and I am prepared that I may not agree with it right away. I can sometimes overlook things, but I wasn't aware my questions were all answered and my arguments debunked. i'll go back and look again, don't be mad bro.

I would really appreciate it if you stopped calling me a liar and an agent.

 

[hazek]

but I don't believe anybody is born a master or slave, at least not without the context of environment.

Oh ok, so you therefor must believe no man can govern another without his explicit consent! Why then wasn't I asked for my consent to agree with the tax law??

 

[onlyrp]

Oh ok, so you therefor must believe no man can govern another without his explicit consent! Why then wasn't I asked for my consent to agree with the tax law??

No, I don't believe that either. "Master & slave" vs "no govern without explicit consent" are not the only two options. There are plenty of things you can (and do) do without either being a master, slave or having obtained explicit consent for.

 

[hazek]

No, I don't believe that either. "Master & slave" vs "no govern without explicit consent" are not the only two options. There are plenty of things you can (and do) do without either being a master, slave or having obtained explicit consent for.

Really? You don't have to give consent and not be a slave at the same time? Care to elaborate how such a thing is possible? Because as far as I know if you are not a slave, it means you can do anything other than causing others harm, and more importantly, no one can govern you without your consent!

 

[onlyrp]

Really? You don't have to give consent and not be a slave at the same time? Care to elaborate how such a thing is possible? Because as far as I know if you are not a slave, it means you can do anything other than causing others harm, and more importantly, no one can govern you without your consent!

if you've already decided there are only 2 options, slave or govern by explicit consent, I'm not going to try to explain it to you.

But if you're willing to accept there may be other options, such as "you are bound by law regardless of whether you agree, yet you are not a slave to any person", can you try to see what I am talking about?

 

[Deborah K]

if you've already decided there are only 2 options, slave or govern by explicit consent, I'm not going to try to explain it to you.

But if you're willing to accept there may be other options, such as "you are bound by law regardless of whether you agree, yet you are not a slave to any person", can you try to see what I am talking about?

Again, you miss the philosophical point.

When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. ~ Frederic Bastiat 'The Law'