Salon Losing Mind Over Paul's 'Taxation = Slavery' Comments

[dude58677]

I mistakenly thought there would be more there.

More of what?

 

[rg17]

More of what?

More bullshit

 

[AuH20]

More of what?

Some logic based argument. Give me anything.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Some logic based argument. Give me anything.

Going to a left-wing website looking for logic is like taking an elevator down to the basement of an outhouse, and what you'll find will be near identical.

 

[dude58677]

Going to a left-wing website looking for logic is like taking an elevator down to the basement of an outhouse, and what you'll find will be near identical.

If the website is talking about drug laws, war mongering, and the old Patriot Act then you will have some logic involved but not always. When the subject is regarding income taxes and guns then logic is thrown out the window.

 

[Krugminator2]

Nobody reads this crap. Salon is dead in the water. As of a couple of weeks ago, Salon had 200k in the bank and loses a million dollars a quarter.


"Salon has incurred significant net losses and negative cash flows from operations since its inception. As of March 31, 2015, Salon had an accumulated deficit of $122.6 million. These losses have been funded primarily through the issuance of Common Stock from Salon’s initial public offering in June 1999, issuances of Preferred Stock, bank debt, the issuance of convertible notes payable and other advances from related parties.

Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., Salon’s independent registered public accounting firm for the years ended March 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 has included a paragraph in their report indicating that substantial doubt exists as to Salon’s ability to continue as a going concern because of Salon’s recurring operating losses, negative cash flow and accumulated deficit."

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com...ex=2&dcn=0001437749-15-012612&nav=1&src=Yahoo

 

[timosman]

Nobody reads this crap. Salon is dead in the water. As of a couple of weeks ago, Salon had 200k in the bank and loses a million dollars a quarter.


"Salon has incurred significant net losses and negative cash flows from operations since its inception. As of March 31, 2015, Salon had an accumulated deficit of $122.6 million. These losses have been funded primarily through the issuance of Common Stock from Salon’s initial public offering in June 1999, issuances of Preferred Stock, bank debt, the issuance of convertible notes payable and other advances from related parties.

Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc., Salon’s independent registered public accounting firm for the years ended March 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 has included a paragraph in their report indicating that substantial doubt exists as to Salon’s ability to continue as a going concern because of Salon’s recurring operating losses, negative cash flow and accumulated deficit."

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com...ex=2&dcn=0001437749-15-012612&nav=1&src=Yahoo

That's pretty typical for a technology company. Not sure what the fuss is about

 

[osan]

Not sure of your points here, but let us take them one at a time...

There is no law making you liable for income tax.

But there are men with guns and plenty of prison space who will nevertheless hold you liable.

There is no law requiring you to pay income tax.

See previous point.

You have a full right to self assessment under the ninth amendment to the Constitution.

And they have full imprimatur of the "state" to cage or kill you for their displeasure of your "self assessment".

Only corporate profits are income.

Tell that to the men with the guns.

There are many work-under-the-table jobs.

Paying squat.

Bitcoin and gold allows untraceable transactions.

That will not save you. Once accused, you will be forced, ultimately at the end of a gun, to defend yourself in a system that will strip your finances from your bones with blinding rapidity. Once gone and your lawyer walks, you are dead meat... not that you would have been otherwise had your lawyer stayed.

The Oathkeepers are capable and willing to back you up as a very last resort.

Um... yeah, OK. I will believe this after the 50th or so case of Oathkeepers shooting dead those who come after others for their outstanding tax liabilities.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[osan]

Wait - wot?

ETA - Reading the comments over there makes me want to hang myself. Liberals are the most self-righteous, arrogant, and dangerously psychotic pricks on the planet.

ACME Sentence Repair And Augmentation Co. at your service.

 

[osan]

Ugh, you actually read the comments there? Quick, go watch a Ron Paul video or the psychological damage might be permanent.

I stopped after a short and painful jaunt. Made a few of my own and I wasn't terribly kind... shame on me, I suppose.

 

[osan]

They have a point in calling him out on that statement. My other problem is that with his line of thinking, he by his definition supports slavery.

Agreed, which is why he needs to exercise a LOT more care in the words he uses. Were the media to get hold of this little gem, imagine the field day they could have, were they to choose to make the issue. Probably will not, given it is probably far too subtle for the average American "intellect".

He talks all the time about the functions of govt and how he is not in favor of abolishing govt, mind you we are talking about same govt that is supported on slavery. He also talks about how he wants to fund the Kurds with weapons paid for by slaves and so on. The only people who should be talking like this are people who actually support abolishing the slavery not people who are in favor of perpetuating it.

Again, I agree. However, look at the practical circumstance: he is attempting to gain traction in a game that cannot be won. The architecture of this system is rotten in its very foundation. Short of a true miracle, there is nothing he will do to fix that which really needs it. Even if he has a reasonably cooperative Congress, unless he were able to guide them into restructuring America at its roots, his improvements such as they may be would last perhaps a generation and we'd be back on the track we're now treading. You have to understand that this is a completely hopeless situation that will be remedied only through cataclysm. It is the only thing that will break the cycle of mass psychosis and corruption that has driven the race of men into a state of raving insanity.

I would stop with that radical talk if I was him.

Yes, a better choice of terms would be a good idea. He will never do it, but I would also suggest a clear explanation of WHY taxation is theft. It doesn't have to take very long. It would be great were he to do it in my fashion during an interview with an über-liberal talking head. The method is simple and one which I have employed on many occasions to hammer opponents dead-flat in such debates. You begin with your premises and get your opponent to accept them. You then go to the next step, whatever it may be, and get them to accept that. Mind you that you are not tying the entire ball of string together until the very end. You take seemingly unrelated bits and pieces and get your opponent to accept them as true. For example, "would you agree that theft is a crime?" "Why, yes, of course." "Are you sure? REALLY sure? I don't want there to be any misunderstanding on that point." "Yes yes, of course I am. Theft is not right." From that point, you have him by the balls, but because such an interviewer is likely dishonest to the marrow, you tighten the noose slowly in the manner of a frog in a pot so he doesn't notice. When you have him set up, you drop the hammer, tying all the pieces together in such a way that there is no wiggle room. Naturally, the douche will attempt to wiggle free, which is when you go back to the list of those things to which he had so strenuously agreed were truths.

Finally, if he is typically dishonest as per his ilk, he will refuse to accept your conclusions regardless. That is when you break out your greatest cruelty: "well, OK then, if you do not believe my conclusion to be correct, please illuminate us as to the proper chain of reasoning." At that point the ball is solidly in his court and YOU become the interviewer. By all manner of instruments you may then drive the little bastard ever deeper into the corner into which he placed himself, with his own words and your questions such that he reveals himself the acme of foppish ineptitude or brute and bald-faced dishonesty. Either way, the little prick loses, done in by his own hand.

How it is that these basic techniques of dealing with hostile interviewers are nowhere apparent, mystifies me. Rand Paul could hammer the living snot out of most of these dopey "personalities", leaving them grotesquely bloodied and maimed, yet he fails to do so. This would suggest the need for some serious change in at least some portion of his campaign staff. I'd offer, but doubt they'd be interested. C'est la guerre.

 

[dude58677]

Not sure of your points here, but let us take them one at a time...



But there are men with guns and plenty of prison space who will nevertheless hold you liable.



See previous point.



And they have full imprimatur of the "state" to cage or kill you for their displeasure of your "self assessment".



Tell that to the men with the guns.



Paying squat.



That will not save you. Once accused, you will be forced, ultimately at the end of a gun, to defend yourself in a system that will strip your finances from your bones with blinding rapidity. Once gone and your lawyer walks, you are dead meat... not that you would have been otherwise had your lawyer stayed.



Um... yeah, OK. I will believe this after the 50th or so case of Oathkeepers shooting dead those who come after others for their outstanding tax liabilities.

I won't hold my breath.

Cliven Bundy is doing well and the reason being is because alot of the OathKeepers are US Marines and the Oathkeeper organization has 30,000-40,000 members. There is no one on the National Guard and hardly anyone at the the pencil pushing office(IRS) who can match up to that. Plus you can start a business under the table. Yes times change! Irwin Schiff was put in prison but the Cliven Bundy era was soon upon us.

 

[osan]

Cliven Bundy is doing well... Cliven Bundy era was soon upon us.

I doubt the Bundy affair has been settled for keeps... yet.

 

[dude58677]

I doubt the Bundy affair has been settled for keeps... yet.

People against Budy have been wrong every step of the way and the government has said they don't like the precedent that Bundy and the Oathkeepers set which is what I'm talking about now. The other thing is that there are people inspired by Bundy. The government tried to make an example out of him and did the opposite. Unintended consequences at it's finest!

Besides we are talking about a very very last resort!

 

[Occam's Banana]

I doubt the Bundy affair has been settled for keeps... yet.

It certainly hasn't: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477994-House-Dems-Plan-to-go-after-Bundy-w-amendment(s)

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I can only imagine what they would have said if Irwin Schiff ran for the Republican Party and gets up on stage and says all the things I mentioned above.

If it becomes Bush vs. Clinton I think I'll just write in Irwin... It's not like they actually look at the votes but it'll make me feel better - for a bit.

 

[AuH20]

I want to rip my hair out with this one. To paraphrase, he infers that since the amount of physical property is limited, taxation is the logical countermeasure to this finite resource issue.

http://theweek.com/articles/565160/...very--betrayed-emptiness-political-philosophy

Paul is probably getting his argument from Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which famously argued: "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor." (Note that not even he went so far as to say taxation was literally identical to slavery.) His book was probably the most convincing case that can be made for this stone-cold form of libertarianism, where all "redistributive" policy is morally abhorrent and only the night watchman state is permissible.

Nevertheless, it's still garbage. Nozick's book constructs a detailed procedural account of justice, arguing that redistributive taxation is theft because it is a coerced transfer. He was a smart guy, and it's very hard to get one's hooks into his argument. The weakness, as with all extremist accounts of property rights, is not with the logic but the premises — particularly when it comes to the very beginning of property.

Go back far enough in history, and there would have been no property of any kind. The moment somebody fences off a piece of land, it necessarily destroys the liberty of everyone else in the world, since they no longer have the right to access that land. Nozick admits this is the case, but still wants to set up initial property rights. So he embraces a concept that he calls the "Lockean proviso."

This proviso allows appropriation of unowned things, so long as it does not worsen the situation of anyone else. And what about people last in line, so to speak, who can't appropriate anything because everything is already taken? Well, they will benefit from the general prosperity brought on by market capitalism.

I will counter his point by stating that our time (income = time) is a finite resource. What is the recourse for lost time? I have some ideas but I don't want the FBI at my door at the moment.

Cooper's profile at the Week: http://theweek.com/authors/ryan-cooper