NationStates Jolt Archive

You're in good company.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070122/REPOSITORY/701220359

Some highlights:

This situation is exploding so fast in this nation and internationally that the Illuminati around the world are becoming very aware," Brown said, referring to a rumored secret society that he believes has infiltrated the highest levels of the world's governments...

Activists shared newsletters on how to avoid paying property taxes and why it's a bad idea to register to vote.....

Several friends and bloggers have been calling for a bloody conclusion to the situation. William Miller, a friend and fellow Constitution Ranger, sent an e-mail last weekend demanding the hanging of the federal judge and prosecutor who worked on Brown's case - and the martyrdom of Brown himself.....

"I would like to see this whole thing go away," he said. "But now's the time it's continuing to build."



Maybe the dumbass should have paid his taxes. Then it wouldn't have happened in the first place. My shadenfreud side hopes he gets "martyred" by one of his own supporters.

Best case scenario the fink just turns himself in.

Second best- he takes a shot at a cop and misses, and gets ventilated.

Are tax evaders a rarity in America?

Interesting how many people think they have right to the property of another. Sad, too.

Interesting how many people think they have right to the property of another. Sad, too.

:confused:

That guy is another martyr for jackasses around the country.

Interesting how many people think they have right to the property of another. Sad, too.

I don't think the tax evader is stealing property so much as stealing services like police, firemen, environmental protection, schools and the social benefits of an educated population, and so on. But you're definitely right. He shouldn't be allowed to freeload.

Interesting how many people think they have right to the property of another. Sad, too.

Indeed, this scum sucker ed brown, leeching off the property and work of America and refusing to put in his share.

Like Shakespeare said: The worse to him the better loved with me.

Since you feel so strongly, myrmy, you should go down there and shoot him yourself.

I don't think the tax evader is stealing property so much as stealing services like police, firemen, environmental protection, schools and the social benefits of an educated population, and so on. But you're definitely right. He shouldn't be allowed to freeload.

Here's what to do: Cut off all services that any public tax money has provided at some point in the process. This means no water, no electricity, no heat, no phone service, and no Internet access.

That should teach the greedy bastard...he'll be freezing, starving, without light, without water, and without any means of communication other than coming out and surrengering.

Indeed, this scum sucker ed brown, leeching off the property and work of America and refusing to put in his share.

Like Shakespeare said: The worse to him the better loved with me.

Since you feel so strongly, myrmy, you should go down there and shoot him yourself.

Actually, I'm on his side. I don't like the idea that I am forced at gunpoint to work for another's purpose. I was referring to the hate and discontent he seems to have bred on this list, due to his refusal to do the same.

Actually, I'm on his side. I don't like the idea that I am forced at gunpoint to work for another's purpose. I was referring to the hate and discontent he seems to have bred on this list, due to his refusal to do the same.

Tough, so what if you are forced, how can you expect to live in a functioning society without making sure people put in their fair share.

I hope this guy gets by okay without any running water, heat, electricity or sanitation. The article doesn't seem to go into detail about the situation there ...

Actually, I'm on his side. I don't like the idea that I am forced at gunpoint to work for another's purpose. I was referring to the hate and discontent he seems to have bred on this list, due to his refusal to do the same.

{said while using services heavily assisted by other peoples taxes}

Tough, so what if you are forced, how can you expect to live in a functioning society without making sure people put in their fair share.

Fair share is one thing. But there's no check on what will be demanded from me. There's no control on how it's spent, either. If I don't want my money spent on Iraq, or AFDC, or any other program, I have no voice in it. It's simply seized and allocated as the imperial government sees fit.

Actually, I'm on his side. I don't like the idea that I am forced at gunpoint to work for another's purpose. I was referring to the hate and discontent he seems to have bred on this list, due to his refusal to do the same.

You should have taken the opportunity presented to change your wrong ideas into right ones.

Don't want to "work for another's purpose?" move to some third world shithole where you aren't expected to.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov

Most libertarians in this country, contrary to what the article seems to suggest, are opposed to this kind of thing. Libertarians seek to reduce the government's impact on people's lives, true, but by legal means. They condone neither tax cheating nor violence against government officials.

In this case, I think Brown should be brought to justice and made to pay what he owes. Maybe it offends his political views to pay taxes, but by not paying taxes he is essentially conducting theft against the entire country. Of course, many corporations (which, thanks to a little-known 1930's law, have virtually the same status as private citizens in this country) are able to dodge taxes like this using secret bank accounts, with the result that the government is being shortchanged billions of dollars by many of the same companies (such as Haliburton) that it does business with through the military-industrial complex (buying trillions of dollars of overpriced cold-war-era equipment ineffective for the new face of warfare, using taxpayer money as the subsidy). So it seems a little hypocritical that we are making such a big deal over a private citizen conducting an act of civil disobedience when large corporations get away with much worse every single day and are often essentially paid to do so with our money. Perhaps the best start to achieving a libertarian system is to cut the government off of monied interests first. Corporations thrive on certain kinds of bureaucracy, the kinds that allow them to infiltrate their money and influence into the system, such as the military-industrial complex.

Fair share is one thing. But there's no check on what will be demanded from me. There's no control on how it's spent, either. If I don't want my money spent on Iraq, or AFDC, or any other program, I have no voice in it. It's simply seized and allocated as the imperial government sees fit.

Its hardly practical to ask each individual in america how they would want their money spent by the government.

Its hardly practical to ask each individual in america how they would want their money spent by the government.

And it's hardly fair to force it from us at gunpoint.

Best place for this guy:

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/jail_cell.jpeg

Best place for this guy:

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/jail_cell.jpeg

How ironic.

And it's hardly fair to force it from us at gunpoint.

"Fair"! That's a good arguement. Let's completely remove any efficiency whatsoever in public funding because some people don't think it's "fair" how the society they belong to and use its resources have decided how it should be.

And it's hardly fair to force it from us at gunpoint.

You may not care for it, but paying taxes is a legal obligation for American citizens. You can't just say, "Well, I don't wanna, so I ain't gonna pay." You don't like the law? Get it changed. It's only "at gunpoint" because he's inviolation of the law. And if you're that pissed off by having to pay taxes, go find somewhere off the grid to live. The fact that you're posting here tells me you're buying into the system to some extent.

Fair share is one thing. But there's no check on what will be demanded from me. There's no control on how it's spent, either. If I don't want my money spent on Iraq, or AFDC, or any other program, I have no voice in it. It's simply seized and allocated as the imperial government sees fit.

Yes you do have a voice in it. It's called the ballot box. (You may notice that some of these idiots oppose that and would rather have a violent outcome) It's called letter writing campaigns. It's called contacting your elected representatives.

"Fair"! That's a good arguement. Let's completely remove any efficiency whatsoever in public funding because some people don't think it's "fair" how the society they belong to and use its resources have decided how it should be.

You may not care for it, but paying taxes is a legal obligation for American citizens. You can't just say, "Well, I don't wanna, so I ain't gonna pay." You don't like the law? Get it changed. It's only "at gunpoint" because he's inviolation of the law. And if you're that pissed off by having to pay taxes, go find somewhere off the grid to live. The fact that you're posting here tells me you're buying into the system to some extent.

Yes you do have a voice in it. It's called the ballot box. (You may notice that some of these idiots oppose that and would rather have a violent outcome) It's called letter writing campaigns. It's called contacting your elected representatives.
I like this not at all. There is absolutely no tolerance for a protest against excessive taxation. There should be. When letters, votes, and phone calls fail to change the fact that we're over-taxed, other action should be available. I do pay my taxes because I don't like the prospect of jail, but that doesn't mean that the taxes are just. Only legal.

I like this not at all. There is absolutely no tolerance for a protest against excessive taxation. There should be. When letters, votes, and phone calls fail to change the fact that we're over-taxed, other action should be available. I do pay my taxes because I don't like the prospect of jail, but that doesn't mean that the taxes are just. Only legal.

You're just not working hard enough to get it changed, maybe.

I like this not at all. There is absolutely no tolerance for a protest against excessive taxation. There should be. When letters, votes, and phone calls fail to change the fact that we're over-taxed, other action should be available. I do pay my taxes because I don't like the prospect of jail, but that doesn't mean that the taxes are just. Only legal.

There's plenty of tolerance. Just not for people that try to play the system and then threaten violence when caught.

If the majority of people felt we are overtaxed and cared enough to do something about it, the system would change. Right now, a 50% turnout on election day is considered high. Seems most people don't feel that way or don't care enough.

I would have more respect for this guy ( which isn't saying much) had he refused to pay and did his time in jail while getting as much media attention as possible instead of trying to get attention by basically saying " I'm gonna die and take some Illuminati agents with me."

Interesting how many people think they have right to the property of another. Sad, too.
What's even more sad is the number of people who want to reverse almost every cornerstone of western civilisation to satisfy some theoretical abstraction.

People need to take off their rose-coloured glasses when they look at government.

It is not a proper representation of anything in particular. It is not a defender of anything in particular. It is not a just organisation, nor a fair one.

All it is is an organisation that has the right to use violence against anyone it chooses to, and which is therefore not bound by any sort of rules of behaviour, like honesty or morality, nor by the incentive system of the market which would force efficiency.

Now, whether we need such an organisation to make society work is another question (and I'd argue that we do)....but what exactly is the problem with tax evasion in the current situation? The government has no rules to adhere to whatsoever, it can change the rules whenever it wants. They are arbitrary, one-sided rules, made to benefit only one party, and one party alone: government.

How anyone could call it unjust or morally wrong to try and avoid having to play by those rules I don't know. If more people did it, we might even secure a bit of respect for the free citizen for a change.

I can tell you one thing: I will pay as little as I can at all times. The only factor that I will consider is the risk it poses to me when they come with their goons.

Yes you do have a voice in it. It's called the ballot box. (You may notice that some of these idiots oppose that and would rather have a violent outcome) It's called letter writing campaigns. It's called contacting your elected representatives.
So, why not get rid of Federal Taxes, which are afterall not decided by me, but decided by millions of people in places I've hardly even heard of? Maybe places who get to put forward more people into the electoral college, or people who live in districts that haven't been cut up to suit the encumbent?

And most of the time (ie every time there isn't an election), legislators decide all by themselves. Many countries went to Iraq for example, despite clear (and sometimes absolutely overwhelming) majorities being against it.

Local taxes can easily be decided upon by the people who actually pay them, and the people that actually benefit from them.

Federal taxes are decided upon by flashy marketing campaigns run by ruthless politicians always aiming at the lowest denominator possible. You'll also notice that politicians never give you the choice in anything straight up. They'll lie to you, they'll tack on entirely unrelated issues, they'll leave things out or just refuse to give you information.

The last Australian Federal Election comes to mind, which Howard won because he said Labour would raise interest rates. Nevermind that that was not actually possible (as it's the reserve bank which does so, and Labour did not have any policies in store which would have forced inflation up).

http://movies.peekvid.com/s4195/

The first part of the movie is absurd. But the rest is intriguing...

So, why not get rid of Federal Taxes, which are afterall not decided by me, but decided by millions of people in places I've hardly even heard of? Maybe places who get to put forward more people into the electoral college, or people who live in districts that haven't been cut up to suit the encumbent?

And most of the time (ie every time there isn't an election), legislators decide all by themselves. Many countries went to Iraq for example, despite clear (and sometimes absolutely overwhelming) majorities being against it.

Local taxes can easily be decided upon by the people who actually pay them, and the people that actually benefit from them.

Federal taxes are decided upon by flashy marketing campaigns run by ruthless politicians always aiming at the lowest denominator possible. You'll also notice that politicians never give you the choice in anything straight up. They'll lie to you, they'll tack on entirely unrelated issues, they'll leave things out or just refuse to give you information.

The last Australian Federal Election comes to mind, which Howard won because he said Labour would raise interest rates. Nevermind that that was not actually possible (as it's the reserve bank which does so, and Labour did not have any policies in store which would have forced inflation up).

Welcome to a representative democracy.

Welcome to a representative democracy.
I prefer to call it the rule of the lowest common denominator, in its current state.

You may not care for it, but paying taxes is a legal obligation for American citizens.

Moral, also.

God instituted the civil government. Whatever the civil government is doing that is not contrary to the Law of God must be obeyed. This man is not only against his responsibility to the state, but also to God.

Actually, I'm on his side. I don't like the idea that I am forced at gunpoint to work for another's purpose. I was referring to the hate and discontent he seems to have bred on this list, due to his refusal to do the same.

Forced at gunpoint? You aren't forced to pay your taxes at gunpoint.

If you don't want to pay them, you forfeit your advantages as an American and get to live in prison.

Forced at gunpoint? You aren't forced to pay your taxes at gunpoint.

If you don't want to pay them, you forfeit your advantages as an American and get to live in prison.



Amen.


Don't forget to read the Bible. It's a good distraction from the forced pain you'll encounter.

Robertson/Coulter '08

I find it interesting that this guy is talking about the Illuminati taking notice. I originally thought he was an exception to my personal rule that only crazy people hole themselves up in a rural home with a lot of guns and try to get themselves martyred (I think that's his end goal, whether he admits it or not). Turns out that the rule holds, since Brown is starting to sound more and more like a "the Illuminati and Freemasons are controlling all of us" nutjob.

Are tax evaders a rarity in America?

Not at all. Most wealthy people are, in fact.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov

Most libertarians in this country, contrary to what the article seems to suggest, are opposed to this kind of thing. Libertarians seek to reduce the government's impact on people's lives, true, but by legal means. They condone neither tax cheating nor violence against government officials.

In this case, I think Brown should be brought to justice and made to pay what he owes. Maybe it offends his political views to pay taxes, but by not paying taxes he is essentially conducting theft against the entire country. Of course, many corporations (which, thanks to a little-known 1930's law, have virtually the same status as private citizens in this country) are able to dodge taxes like this using secret bank accounts, with the result that the government is being shortchanged billions of dollars by many of the same companies (such as Haliburton) that it does business with through the military-industrial complex (buying trillions of dollars of overpriced cold-war-era equipment ineffective for the new face of warfare, using taxpayer money as the subsidy). So it seems a little hypocritical that we are making such a big deal over a private citizen conducting an act of civil disobedience when large corporations get away with much worse every single day and are often essentially paid to do so with our money. Perhaps the best start to achieving a libertarian system is to cut the government off of monied interests first. Corporations thrive on certain kinds of bureaucracy, the kinds that allow them to infiltrate their money and influence into the system, such as the military-industrial complex.

Wot 'e says. Zigzackly.

I like this not at all. There is absolutely no tolerance for a protest against excessive taxation. There should be. When letters, votes, and phone calls fail to change the fact that we're over-taxed, other action should be available. I do pay my taxes because I don't like the prospect of jail, but that doesn't mean that the taxes are just. Only legal.

Why do you believe that the current rate of taxation is excessive? For another matter, why do you believe there is an acceptable level of taxation? Why not become an anarcho-capitlist?

People need to take off their rose-coloured glasses when they look at government.

It is not a proper representation of anything in particular. It is not a defender of anything in particular. It is not a just organisation, nor a fair one.

I don't think people have much of rosey-colored glasses when it comes to government. What I mean by that is that almost everyone bitches about it. We want something cut, or more benefits, or fewer taxes. When we say that the government is a defender of the weak or provides equal opportunity we're basically describing a mix of reality and our aspirations for government.

All it is is an organisation that has the right to use violence against anyone it chooses to, and which is therefore not bound by any sort of rules of behaviour, like honesty or morality, nor by the incentive system of the market which would force efficiency.

The government is bound by a number of things. The economy, international financial markets, other governments, voters, itself(other branches of itelf, levels of government, its own bueracracy), and the members of government itself. The military could gain power over civilians and yet it hasn't happened yet. Plus the government makes the rules that the market is run upon.

Now, whether we need such an organisation to make society work is another question (and I'd argue that we do)....but what exactly is the problem with tax evasion in the current situation? The government has no rules to adhere to whatsoever, it can change the rules whenever it wants. They are arbitrary, one-sided rules, made to benefit only one party, and one party alone: government.

How anyone could call it unjust or morally wrong to try and avoid having to play by those rules I don't know. If more people did it, we might even secure a bit of respect for the free citizen for a change.

You're saying that government needs to exist yet people shouln't pay for it. Look even if taxation is wrong or excessive this guy had no problem using the services payed by tax dollars. If you have a problem with welfare then you should have a problem with him too. He basically used the government's ability to coerce funds out of people for his own benefit.

So, why not get rid of Federal Taxes, which are afterall not decided by me, but decided by millions of people in places I've hardly even heard of? Maybe places who get to put forward more people into the electoral college, or people who live in districts that haven't been cut up to suit the encumbent?

And most of the time (ie every time there isn't an election), legislators decide all by themselves. Many countries went to Iraq for example, despite clear (and sometimes absolutely overwhelming) majorities being against it.

Local taxes can easily be decided upon by the people who actually pay them, and the people that actually benefit from them.

Local taxes are still coercive. Just ask any anarcho-capitalist who tries to avoid paying the property taxes or what have you that he owes. Also, people do not necessarily benefit from them either. If money is shunted to improve the education system of a local area how does that effect seniors, childless couples, ect?

Basically I think the government is needed, useful, and highly flawed. I find numerous things wrong with our current system and wish I could build one muuch more to my liking, but that hardly means I will think of someone who leeches off his fellow citizens, those who pay taxes, as a hero.

Why do you believe that the current rate of taxation is excessive? For another matter, why do you believe there is an acceptable level of taxation? Why not become an anarcho-capitlist?

He isnt a teenager anymore, for one thing.

People need to take off their rose-coloured glasses when they look at government.

Etc. etc. etc. . . .



Preach it brother, I'm with you all the way. And I agree that government activities should always be done by the lowest possible level of government.

Have you become more libertarian over the past year or so? I had an account here a while ago, and I seem to remember you being moderately statist on economic issues. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else . . .

Anyway, here's the real reason I'm posting in this thread:

. . . Gandhi-admiring protesters who have limited their involvement to building bonfires and waving signs and armed militia members anxious for confrontation.

Either that newspaper ought to get some literate editors, or those Gandhi admirers ought to find safer things to wave.