Wisconsin Man in Police Standoff Over Unpaid Taxes

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Then what do you intend to do? Spell it out for me. Revolution? Assassination? Are you ready to pick up a gun and put the crosshairs square in some politician or banker or corporate CEO's eye? Are you willing to pull the trigger? Will you do it while he's at home with his wife and young kids? Can you? Or will you wait 'til he's out in the open? Are you willing to kill for this? How many? Are you ready to die for it? Are you ready and willing to lose everything you have, everyone you love, to become a martyr for the anti-tax movement? Does that part of your missing paycheck burn you so much you will give it all up, including your own life, to try and prove a point? I'm serious. Be honest! I want the absolute, God's honest truth--Are you ready to die for this?

Considering that your position is directly contrary to clearly specified mandates constitutionally ratified and codified into law, you have a lot of nerve equating dissent with criminal violence. Your imagery of shooting people in the head in front of their children however, may have revealed more about your mindset than you intended.

The law is clear, your position that citizens need to have the fruits of their labor taxed, and that a non-nongovernmental agency's 'policy' must be recognized and respected as law smacks of the fascism we are identifying in this thread.

I have carefully reviewed your posts and have now clearly identified the need you have to persuade people to 'accept' the fantasy of 'why we have to pay taxes as proscribed by the IRS.' Good luck to you in the future, but your current position is untenable, you cannot sterilize the collective wisdom of many great Americans (those 'quotes' you seem so reticent to address.) The fiat/debt model developed to funnel American wealth into private bankers' hands has been identified, verified, and even now, is beginning to strain to break its propaganda control-bonds.

Sadly, debaters of your ilk, who are determined any contrary position ends up in terms of killing, jail, crime, and cruelty are stumbling around - even in places like this, STILL clinging to the 'obey' paradigm - you're in the wrong place if you think thinly veiled equations of dissent=crime are going to fly in this neck of the woods - there's simply not enough ignorance here to support the notion that the income tax model is legitimate as it stands. And you 'logic' of 'tried and true' nonsensical forays into the 'needs' of the government to support our 'way of life' are best saved for emails to the administration - because it would appear, you have been their source all along.

By the way the next time you want someone to state in writing what they might fantasize about doing to the those faceless criminals that work for the illegal protection racket set up by the FED and IRS, make sure you ask them for their IP address outright, you wouldn't want them to think you were just asking out of curiosity would you?

[edit on 6-4-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


Well said Max I think the short summary of the debate is accepting the status quo which is our government today or going back to what this country was founded in. Im going to spell out the fight and everyone can choose sides its quite simple.

MONETARY SYSTEM
Now: Our monetary system is controlled by a private bank called the FED they control the value and the flow of money by lowering and raising interest rates. Basically inflating and deflating at their will. The Federal Reserve System virtually controls the nation's monetary system, yet it is accountable to no one. It has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional Committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations.

Then: Our money was a gold standard where a dollar would be worth approximately 1/20 of an oz of gold. This was minted by our government it was a hard money, a money that could not be tampered with, that could not be inflated to permit government expenditures skyrocketing.

My opinion is the federal reserve is illegal and unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson fought the idea of a central bank saying it was a monster bank and that the money in America was the peoples money. I think Jefferson had it right.


TAXES

Now:Well we have the IRS which sees over your income taxes. The income tax was started in 1913 ironically the same year as the federal reserve was started. It was targeting for the rich because the rich and did not affect most people because the government knew that no one would support it if these taxes hit the normal working class person. Then there was Social Security and Medicare.

Then: There was no income tax. Because the government controlled our monetary system and because it was backed by gold the government could just print the money as long as it had the gold to back it. This controlled government spending also because the government could only spend what it had in gold. Lincoln went off the standard during the civil war then when it was over went back to the standard.

My opinion: If it wasnt for the federal reserve we wouldnt have taxes. Once again this is illegal and unconstitutional. Its another way to put people into slavery.

In Final: I would like to say a year ago I was in people like nighthawks position a die hard republican in fact that if you didnt go with the system you were anti american. It took this economic slowdown for me to start to really research how the system works because I could not fully understand why things could be so great one minute and then in the matter of 6 months just be in a world of poo.

As far and people who hate "anti government" then you would find yourself hating some pretty big guys like Thomas Jefferson who was considered anti government in his day. So rages the debate was this country founded on a strong central government which I personally dont think it was I mean god thats why the revolutionary war was started because of taxes and big government control or small government where the power is with the people. In the movie the patriot with Mel Gibson in the early parts of the movie when south carolina was debated on joining the cause he says "why would I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away." I mean when you really think about that it really sums it up.

It is so weird that my grandparents (many, many) years ago seemed to realize the true source of the problem so clearly responsible for the sad state of affairs for this gentlemen and his new status as 'anti-American' monster.

Detractors, seem to want always to return to the tired and rickety excuse of all the things the federal government 'needs' these taxes for. They talk about all the 'wonders' and 'boons' they gift to the people with these taxes, they try to pull every emotional string possible

1) poor people - they receive their support from our tax-dollars;
2) infrastructure - the tax dollars keep America functioning;
3) security - tax dollars are used to 'protect' America and the American way of life;
4) honor - to have the 'right' to call yourself a 'true' American you have to give back to the people;
5) duty - paying taxes is your duty as an American;

We've have seen in this thread the argument as follows:

1) Poor people get support primarily from their home state, the federal 'aid' that usually has to be 'sued' for is fiat/debt based wherein the beneficiary of the 'loan' (i.e. the individual actually profiting from its repayment - is a private bank - regardless of who pays it back) In other words, the clever monkeys have made it so that a poor persons situation represents a profit opportunity.

2) In a land where deadly crane and bridge collapses are becoming common news, where our federal government subsidizes infrastructure support for corporations (i.e. spending our money) for roads, pipe lines, telecommunications lines and transmission equipment - the cost of which is then built into the price we are forced to pay for services to those corporations - even though they didn't lose even a penny off their profit for the 'infrastructure you would have to be blind not to see the racketeering end of this 'support'. How many times have we double and triple-payed (over and over) for the infrastructure - and when does it end? And how is it that despite all this 'payment' - its collapsing around us everyday.

3) This may not be the most wanton profiteering-driven aspect of taxation as it exists today - but it is certainly the most low-class sleazy aspect of it. Regardless of your faith, political bent, or socio-cultural inclination - you would have to be pretty 'disconnected' to think that the federal government is protecting 'you' and 'your way of life' as opposed to following an ideological agenda that is not only completely separated from the 'public' interest, it is also unabashedly focused on the protection and and promotion of corporate goals lifted straight out of their own business plans. (Think Cheney - Enron - energy policies, then think Iraq/Afghanistan - Haliburton - Cheney) Our nation is becoming a riches to rags story - but certain folks seem to be retaining and growing their wealth base quite nicely. These are the same people deciding mow much YOU pay in taxes, and why they shouldn't have to.

4) This, of course, is entire disingenuous, since the very notion that you have to be able to pay taxes be be a member in good standing of national citizenship seem strangely akin to 'club memberships'. It basically reduces us to a condition of - 'it costs money to be an American.' When did they slip that into the constitution? They 'degrade' a citizen for not quietly yielding to the process via - name calling - shame - stigma - and eventually - criminalization.

5) This is their only high ground, tainted by the fact that they care not to account for the use of your taxes - just see to it that you do pay - or suffer the consequences - and no law, no process, no redress for you.

Every cent I give is a loan to my government (that's right, as the 'employer' of the government I retain the right to declare that when she comes to me with a hand out - what I give her is owed back to me and my fellow citizens with interest.) I, as an American citizen, and thus originator of the authority to delegate the power to act on my behalf, expect MY EMPLOYEES to yield to MY/OUR will, not vice-versa. Thus what 'duty' I claim is the duty of leadership.

Those in government (federal, and even state to some extent) have - through purposeful intent - orchestrated a series of bureaucratic and procedural process, the only effect of which is to disenfranchise the American citizens by removing their ability to demand an accounting of affairs, and deny them the means and tools to compel a redress of issues. Such an action, and the position that to publicly question or exemplify dissent is a criminal act - constitutes a treasonous abuse of power and sedition at the level of organized crime.

Those who differ in opinion often attempt to reduce statements such as those above to terms of violence, criminalization of free speech, cause for unconstitutional rendition, or justification for bypassing human rights, show their degree of submission to the status quo. They fail to recognize or admit the fact that application of their philosophy is equal to subjection to fascism.

Students of history know where this path has lead over the millennia of recorded human history. The understanding that WE are the source of their power is the greatest idea that must be wiped from the collective minds of the people. The idea that the only way to overcome it is through violence and crime is THEIR OWN. They know that such action will justify any reaction they choose. IT seems they are the one's hell-bent on expressing everything in terms of violent confrontation [can anyone explain how a 60-year old many in the middle of his own land required a para military tactical strike force to respond - I can't imagine how devastatingly dangerous he was to the American people. - How much money does it cost the taxpayers to send in such a highly specialized and technologically equipped team of 'peace' officers? Would anyone care to bet it was actually MORE than he owed? And by the way - you know where the money for such a tactical response came from? State taxes! So now the state will tax those poor people to pay for sending in the 'muscle' to collect for the FED/IRS lords.

But that's the key, he WAS dangerous - but only to the 'American people that matter' - the corporation-driven wealth vacuum that pays for and supports the entire political machine, the information control system that deceives us, and the smiling overlords who enjoy our collective trails the was we enjoy watching the Simpsl

With all the focus on unpaid taxes, in this thread, i wondered about the
actual "armed" part of the standoff...

Wow! This 60 year old man was shooting up a sweat, forcing the first
armored vehicle to retreat, heavily damaged!!!

When the cops re-grouped, coming back with three more apc's, he was
hurling GRENADES!!!!

One-Man Plattoon!

Mr. Bayliss gave 'em hell; but overwhelming force eventually burned him
out! Being charged with attempted homicide now, he/we can forget all
about the back taxes!!!

Note to self: Never resist, unless equally matched!!!
and keep the property taxes paid-up, until ALL OF US refuse to pay!!!

[edit on 4/7/2008 by FRIGHTENER]

delete

[edit on 7-4-2008 by C0le]

Originally posted by FRIGHTENER

Note to self: Never resist, unless equally matched!!!
and keep the property taxes paid-up, until ALL OF US refuse to pay!!!

I agree totally, the point to resist is not to do so on their terms. They have had decades to prepare methods to deal with the dribs and drabs of dissenters as they have been coming into public view. 'Going it alone' while heroic, and perhaps 'romantic' is not helping the goal of re-establish the law of the land. Something along the lines of a 'national' failure to comply with IRS personal tax collection, or a 'national strike' is the only way to really be 'heard' in this regard - and armed struggle is just - as the system so regularly tries to plant the idea into all our minds - a ticket to 'suicide by cop.' (Notice how it always comes back to 'fear' and 'pain and violence.'?)

I understand he was 'armed' and while I don't doubt he was armed and zealously devoted to 'defending himself', I thin the 'Rambo' aspects of the report bely it's credibility. Would you enjoy some propaganda with your early morning tea? Remember Waco? When you deploy millions of dollars in urban pacification equipment - you had better make it look good!

No accusations meant in there, just curious observations how they needed an army to get this guy. Like he was never going to leave his land to get his mail, or shop for essentials. They needed to stage a small 'Normandy'-style invasion because this guy was like the Antichrist on PCP or something.

You know, in reviewing the repsonses I've seen here, I think a lot of people have me mis-characterised and have put a lot of words in my mouth. Let's go over some basic facts:

First off, my "hateful" tone. I don't really "hate" anyone here, since I don't even know who any of you are. I'm greatly annoyed by the anti-tax zealotry I see here, but it is your right to b!tch and moan about it all you like. If you think I've crossed the line take it up with the mods.

If I come off as abrasive and hateful, well, this thread's posters were pretty agressive when I got here, and there's been escalations on both sides. One of you, and you know who you are, made what amounts to a threat against my life. So Pot, stop pissing in my Kettle.

Second, I understand you guys see taxation and the trappings of modern society as un-Constitutional. Taxes aren't, the Sixteenth Amendment makes them legal. As for the other stuff, well, this isn't the 18th Century, we're not a colony of a larger power anymore (especially one that has to send a fleet of sailing ships on a two-month voyage across the Atlantic to enforce its rule), and Americans as a whole are not a nation of people who can all chop their own wood, grow gardens large enough to feed their families, and build their own log homes on a parcel of land they got for free just because they were willing to go there and claim it. The world, and America, has moved on. It has evolved. It has progressed. 1776 America was an agrarian society of a type that no longer truly exists. They barely had basic printing technology, let alone instantaneous communications across the globe. Things are no longer as they were, and they're not going back unless some major catastrophe greatly reduces the world's population.

Now about the Fed: Nowhere have I ever stated the Fed was a good thing. I think it's the greatest threat to the American economy since the Robber Barons. But it's here, it's reality, and you have to deal with that. Again, you have choices to make for yourself about how you handle it.

The gold standard: We're not going back. It's just not likely to ever happen. And even if it did, the transition would be devastating on our economy. One might argue that one big, quick transitional trauma vs. a slow bleed might be a good thing. I'm not so sure. And frankly, the way commodities are speculated on and traded nowadays like chips in a Vegas casino, you might not like the gold standard so much when day traders in a tizzy make your dollar worth ten cents. If you want the gold standard you would have to attach it to some kind of regulation limiting speculation on gold, or we'd be right back at square one.

See, this is why I get angry with you: The world is a much more complicated place than it was in Jefferson's time. Instant communications, intercontinental travel within hours instead of months, travel between American cities in minutes or hours instead of days. Industry and business interests that just didn't exist at the time. Warfare, crappy as it is, still exists but instead of taking a month to move foot soldiers into a strategic area with black-powder muskets we can airlift a small army right into the hot zone in less than an hour with fully-automatic weapons and get instantaneous command-and-control with a bunker ten thousand miles away. Infrastructure has moved beyond dirt roads and now encompasses airports, huge sprawling seaports, water, sewer, electric power, natural gas... Hell, oil was worthless black slime until Daimler figured out it could be refined to run an engine.

Point is, all of this requires money. It requires some form of administration. These things cannot be left to just "happen". Wherever states and nations develop, you will find these things, and life moves away from the agrarian and into the industrial. You guys seem to reject this basic fact of human existence in the 21st Century, and what really ticks me off is that you do so and howl about how unfair it is--but you never come up with any solutions. Or, you have changes you'd like to see, but make no suggestion as to how to achieve that change. I have offered solutions. It is a political world, ergo, politics will provide the solution. Get involved in politics and move yourself into a position to change things in the way you see fit. It isn't flashy, it isn't violent, it doesn't satisfy the bloodlust some of you seem to have. But it can and does work. Can we get rid of the Fed through political means? Maybe. But you have to have something to replace it with, and there's no guarantee that the replacement system will work any better or allow for any more "freedom". Can you overthrow the government through violence? Maybe. But something has to replace it, and again, there's no guarantees you'll be happy with the result. This is a nation founded on Democratic principles (Yes, I know it's a "representative republic", but even that is a refined form of open democracy) and I believe in freedom, the same as you. I believe if you don't like the way your government is doing things, you have every right, nay, the responsibility to get involved and try to fix it the right way--through legitimate political discourse.

As for my attitudes on where our homeland is right now, I'm not happy with it either. I'm no Fascist. I'm disgusted with police using violence as the first resort instead of the last. I'm sick of war for profit. People who drive tank-sized SUVs getting five miles to the gallon when they live in a cozy suburb and commute two hours a day and then whine about the price of gas piss me off. I recognize and support the right to bear arms but I think there should be some basic limits on what civilians should be able to own, mandatory training in their use, and strong controls in place so the local child molester can't just walk into Wal-Mart and buy a semi-auto shotgun. I keep the flag that draped my father's coffin in a safe, clean place and I sing the National Anthem when I listen to the Cubs on WGN. All I really want in life is to live comfortably, be involved in the political process, and spend the rest of my life in happiness with my wife-to-be. And maybe a small convertible. I believe government is needed and can be a force for good, but it's our responsibility to make it that way. If that's weakness, I'll take it.

And one other thing: It's been said several times, but it keeps getting lost in the anti-Fed rhetoric--the subject of this thread was NOT in trouble for failure to pay income tax. It was property tax, and property tax alone, that did the deed here. Take it up with the State of Wisconsin and the man's local municipality, not the IRS. Is it fair? No, it's not. But b!tching is pointless. You need solutions. And property tax happens to be something you have a possibility to fix, through local political action. You never know until you get involved.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
A) ..., I'm greatly annoyed by the anti-tax zealotry I see here, but it is your right to b!tch and moan about it all you like.

A) Evidently, however, my disagreement is with your characterization. I want the government 'of' the people to obey the laws 'of' the people, and accept that the 'government' doesn't get to decide what 'laws' are while denying the right to call for an accounting of that decision. By the way, 'b!tching and moaning' is how change begins - I would never expect a forum of instant solutions - besides, without it, nay sayers wouldn't have the opportunity to respond and in all likelihood improve the outcome or the final product.

B) ..., there's been escalations on both sides.
C) ..., One of you, and you know who you are, made what amounts to a threat against my life.

B) Quite true, C) while I am uncertain what could be said in this forum that could so upset someone as to get so carried away, I suspect that whoever it was vented inappropriately. Let's hope that the lesson was learned and arguments never have to go that far again.

D) ..., Second, I understand you guys see taxation and the trappings of modern society as un-Constitutional. Taxes aren't, the Sixteenth Amendment makes them legal.

This point is where you and I differ. The ratification of the 16th Amendment would have made it legal. Unfortunately,
- the circumstances of its introduction is the text-book definition of fraud,
- it was it NOT legally ratified and certainly not properly debated,
- the voting records were falsified, even to the point of altering the federal record,
- the federal government in the form of our elected legislatorial body failed to act in accordance with the law to pursue satisfaction regarding the inconsistencies - while simultaneously offering no indication during public speeches and statements to the press - that any discrepancies existed - thus becoming active participants in the fraud. This fraud continues to be overlooked to this day - ask for redress and be ignored for yourself, if you don't believe it.

E) ..., 1776 America was an agrarian society of a type that no longer truly exists. They barely had basic printing technology

The key isn't the type of society, its the fact that it was a society. Through media, politics, and exploitation of socio-cultural differences, we have allowed the federal government to splinter us into fragmented competing interests, with them as the only viable arbiter to settle out disputes. Technology does not equate to culture - it affects culture, to allow it to define culture makes us the 'subjects' of technology.

F) ..., Things are no longer as they were, and they're not going back unless some major catastrophe greatly reduces the world's population.

I wasn't going to bring this up because its a tad off topic - there are those who present a case to consider that 'depopulation' is part of the agenda that brought some of the events we see today about.

G) Now about the Fed: Nowhere have I ever stated the Fed was a good thing. I think it's the greatest threat to the American economy since the Robber Barons. But it's here, it's reality, and you have to deal with that. Again, you have choices to make for yourself about how you handle it.

'It's here' is one thing, that we 'have to deal with that' is entirely another matter. The beginning of dealing with it is 'b!tching and moaning', to coin a phrase. Also, not everyone can be counted upon to make the best choice in dealing with things, sometimes 'talking it out' has to be part of the process. Of course I speak of honest debate.

H) The gold standard: We're not going back.

I wish you were wrong, but you're not - that boat has sailed - it was stolen from us and will not be returning.

I) The world is a much more complicated place than it was in Jefferson's time.

I'm sorry to disagree on such a basic point. The world is not complicated, we have made it complicated, and most everyone who attempts to restore simplistic sanity tends to end up dead.

J) Point is, all of this requires money. It requires some form of administration. These things cannot be left to just "happen".

Not to be a sophist or anything, but how did progress happen in the first place? I think this is another fundamental difference in our opinion, I refuse to accept 'money' as the driver of the improvement of mankind. I think it was supposed to be a symbol that has been corrupted for someone's benefit other than the global community.

L) ... what really ticks me off is that you do so and howl about how unfair it is--but you never come up with any solutions. Or, you have changes you'd like to see, but make no suggestion as to how to achieve that change.

That's not true, you forget that you don't accept the solutions given therefore you won't accept the 'path to achieving' regardless.

M) I have offered solutions. It is a political world, ergo, politics will provide the solution.

I beg to differ - Politics GOT US HERE, the methodology, processes, and 'members of the political arena' who are responsible for our acquiescence and suffering thus far - I can't bring myself to leave the solution to the system that caused the problem in the first place.

O) But you have to have something to replace it with, and there's no guarantee that the replacement system will work any better or allow for any more "freedom".

I suppose so, but even that, from a 'logical' perspective is only an assumption - who says we have to replace it at all?

P) Can you overthrow the government through violence? Maybe. But something has to replace it, and again, there's no guarantees you'll be happy with the result.

I think you can't. You end up with violence as law.

We must be willing to consider that what we as citizens 'think' is at least as important (if not more so) than what our 'employee the government' does. The wisdom of politicians and 'club members' is very clearly promoted and adhered to despite 'common understanding'. We have even seen possible evidence to the effect that a concerted effort is being made to ensure that we as a population become less and less able to think for ourselves.

reply to post by Maxmars


Hey, thanks, Max; Star!

You hit what i was saying, right on the head! only smoother.
Yep, going alone, only alienates and marginalizes an otherwise good
person, and really makes him look crazy to those who don't understand
what you & I are talking about!

"Resistance is futile" . . . the Borg! ! !

Originally posted by Maxmars
Evidently, however, my disagreement is with your characterization. I want the government 'of' the people to obey the laws 'of' the people, and accept that the 'government' doesn't get to decide what 'laws' are while denying the right to call for an accounting of that decision. By the way, 'b!tching and moaning' is how change begins - I would never expect a forum of instant solutions - besides, without it, nay sayers wouldn't have the opportunity to respond and in all likelihood improve the outcome or the final product.

Then on a certain level we agree. My problem is not with the complaints, it's with the fact that I have read nothing in this thread regarding what to do next (aside from threats of violence). You can only complain so long before you're doing it for its own sake, and there has to come a point where you decide what to do next--and follow through.

C) while I am uncertain what could be said in this forum that could so upset someone as to get so carried away, I suspect that whoever it was vented inappropriately. Let's hope that the lesson was learned and arguments never have to go that far again.

I'll try to keep it civil if everyone else will.

This point is where you and I differ. The ratification of the 16th Amendment would have made it legal.

The fact this "fraud" continues to this day, and is totally supported by the US Supreme Court, should tell you there isn't much to be done about it. What's that prayer? "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference?" I'm no Christian, but these words contain universal wisdom.

The key isn't the type of society, its the fact that it was a society. Through media, politics, and exploitation of socio-cultural differences, we have allowed the federal government to splinter us into fragmented competing interests, with them as the only viable arbiter to settle out disputes. Technology does not equate to culture - it affects culture, to allow it to define culture makes us the 'subjects' of technology.

Largely, we are. Modern society is dependent upon technology. Whole sectors of our economy are based on the creation, sale, and maintenance of technology. The two are so closely intertwined, that if something happened to wipe out our tech, most Americans would be next to helpless. And, that's true of any industrialized society. God, imagine if an EMP hit Japan!!

I wasn't going to bring this up because its a tad off topic - there are those who present a case to consider that 'depopulation' is part of the agenda that brought some of the events we see today about.

I choose not to believe that. I've heard and read these stories as well, but I doubt their veracity for several reasons, not the least of which is, since we have a good idea who many of these "PTB" are, if they really were trying such a thing I think some vigilante would take them out. Then again, most of the people who believe in that stuff would seemingly rather wait for it to happen and hide from it than try to prevent it.

'It's here' is one thing, that we 'have to deal with that' is entirely another matter. The beginning of dealing with it is 'b!tching and moaning', to coin a phrase. Also, not everyone can be counted upon to make the best choice in dealing with things, sometimes 'talking it out' has to be part of the process. Of course I speak of honest debate.

Understandable. But what to do beyond the debate?

The world is not complicated, we have made it complicated, and most everyone who attempts to restore simplistic sanity tends to end up dead.

But it is. Our knowledge base is growing exponentially. With knowledge comes increasing levels of sophistication, specialization, and compartmentalization. I think we're seeing the natural progression and evolution of civilization.

Not to be a sophist or anything, but how did progress happen in the first place? I think this is another fundamental difference in our opinion, I refuse to accept 'money' as the driver of the improvement of mankind. I think it was supposed to be a symbol that has been corrupted for someone's benefit other than the global community.

No, invention and enlightenment drive mankind, but money is the catalyst. The steam engine, cotton gin, etc. would have been cute novelties if nobody had realized how much money they could make from them. The rise of industry as an economic force has permanently changed the world.

That's not true, you forget that you don't accept the solutions given therefore you won't accept the 'path to achieving' regardless.

The solutions I've seen posted here involve A) Hiding, B) Debate with no action to back it up, C) Violence. I offer a real, viable solution and everyone sh*ts on it.

Politics GOT US HERE,

And it can get us out again.

the methodology, processes, and 'members of the political arena' who are responsible for our acquiescence and suffering thus far - I can't bring myself to leave the solution to the system that caused the problem in the first place.

Again, I'm not saying you should just "trust the system"--I'm saying you must become part of the system, trust your own conscience and bend the system to your will. Whether you do that by running for office or getting rich and lobbying, it's up to you.

who says we have to replace it at all?

Because our economy has to have some basis. There has to be some system for the exchange of goods and services. That's been the truth for 5,000 years of human history and it's true now. What do you want? "Credits", like in Star Trek? Gold-backed currency? What will we use in your vision of what society should be?

In fact, why don't you describe your ideal society in detail. We'll compare notes. Seriously, I would like to know what exactly you want.

We must be willing to consider that what we as citizens 'think' is at least as important (if not more so) than what our 'employee the government' does.

And the best way to do this is to become politically active and take back our government through legal, legitimate means. Roadblocks can be overcome.

Because our economy has to have some basis. There has to be some system for the exchange of goods and services. That's been the truth for 5,000 years of human history and it's true now. What do you want? "Credits", like in Star Trek? Gold-backed currency? What will we use in your vision of what society should be?

In fact, why don't you describe your ideal society in detail. We'll compare notes. Seriously, I would like to know what exactly you want.

Shalom!

Life is a manifestation of Love.
Love is Free Giving.

There is only One; the tao that can be named is not the true tao.

There is no corporation.
There is no united states.
There is no income.
There is no loss.
There is no economy.

There is no personal property.

There is no persona.

There is only the I.

atman is Brahman.

Jah Love, rasta forever!

Christened,

Sovereign,

I am,

Sri Oracle,

I keep the light lit in rabbit hole number 501(C)(3).

and I agree...

Roadblocks can be overcome.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Sri Oracle]

If something is to be done it certainly isn't a bunch of loosely connected paranoids with rifles shooting their neighborhood H&R Block employees.

I think the best step would be for a large group of people preferably in the same geographic location to refuse payment. It's easy enough for a government to waste millions of dollars and kill whoever it has to prove it's point. We saw it with Waco, the Weaver family and the Browns. It doesn't matter how much they claim you owe them or what made up laws they claim you broke they'll send in tanks and troops and helicopters and shoot your wife dead while she holds you infant daughter in her arms to get the point across. They are for all intents and purposes your god. Tithe to them or they will decide to end the life they didn't give you.

Violence won't solve anything. McVeigh proved that. It just makes you a murdering monster even easier to dislike that the taxpayer funded murdering monster. We need a whole town to refuse to pay. A whole county if is better. A state would be best. An individual needs to stop accepting town "services" a town needs to stop accepting state "services" and a state needs to stop accepting fed "services." It's going to be like taking heroin out of a junkies arm. He'll probably scream and cry and vomit a whole lot but in the end he'll be better off.

There's no reason why those who wish to live the way we currently do cannot continue to do so and there's no reason why some farmer in the middle of nowhere with no utilities, no infrastructure and no desire for police, fire or medical services can't just be left alone. Does the uppity city guy with his plasma TV, SUV, and opera tickets really need the money the state would extort from the farmer to keep up his lifestyle? I doubt it. Does the farmer need the money payed into the system by the uppity city jackass with his SUV and opera tickets? Absolutely not.

Property tax is modern feudalism. Simple as that. Pay you dues to the lord or his army will raze your land, rape your wife and if your lucky just throw you in jail. That's a human rights violation if ever there was one.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Shalom!

Life is a manifestation of Love.
Love is Free Giving.

There is only One; the tao that can be named is not the true tao.

There is no corporation.
There is no united states.
There is no income.
There is no loss.
There is no economy.

There is no personal property.

There is no persona.

There is only the I.

atman is Brahman.

Jah Love, rasta forever!

Christened,

I am,

Sri Oracle,

I keep the light lit in rabbit hole number 501(C)(3).


[edit on 7-4-2008 by Sri Oracle]

On a spiritual level I'm inclined to agree with you. Spirituality and practicality, however, are different as night and day, without even the benefit of a light touch at dusk and dawn.

[edit on 4/7/2008 by The Nighthawk]

I think, therefore I AM.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If something is to be done it certainly isn't a bunch of loosely connected paranoids with rifles shooting their neighborhood H&R Block employees.

I think the best step would be for a large group of people preferably in the same geographic location to refuse payment.

Again, you keep wanting to buck the system. I don't know why this is, maybe the romance of being an outlaw. But it doesn't work in the modern world. Become the system instead.

It's easy enough for a government to waste millions of dollars and kill whoever it has to prove it's point. We saw it with Waco,

Koresh was a madman with delusions of grandeur who liked having sex with children. He had more guns than most police departments and he was illegally modifying them. He wanted a huge, bloody showdown. Now that doesn't mean the Feds had to give him one--I have issues with the handling of Waco--but I will never mourn David Koresh or those of his followers who let him screw their prepubescent daughters. He's no martyr.

Violence won't solve anything. McVeigh proved that.

McVeigh may very well have had help from foreign agents.

It just makes you a murdering monster even easier to dislike that the taxpayer funded murdering monster. We need a whole town to refuse to pay. A whole county if is better. A state would be best. An individual needs to stop accepting town "services" a town needs to stop accepting state "services" and a state needs to stop accepting fed "services." It's going to be like taking heroin out of a junkies arm. He'll probably scream and cry and vomit a whole lot but in the end he'll be better off.

And you and I both know full well this will never actually happen. What's your alternative?

There's no reason why those who wish to live the way we currently do cannot continue to do so and there's no reason why some farmer in the middle of nowhere with no utilities, no infrastructure and no desire for police, fire or medical services can't just be left alone.

Sure there is. Interdependence. See, Democracy is, to some extent, a socialist political philosophy. A government for, of, and by the people has a reasonable expectation that the people will share in the cost of running government and providing needed services. We are all, to some degree, our brother's keeper, whether we wish to believe that or not. Society spreads the cost of its upkeep among the population because if people had to pay out-of-pocket for any of the services government provides, they would quickly go bankrupt. If government does not provide those services someone else will, at a greatly inflated price. Keeping that 30% the feds take from your paycheck won't help you if the roads are owned by corporations that charge you $50 each way in tolls for your daily commute.

Does the uppity city guy with his plasma TV, SUV, and opera tickets really need the money the state would extort from the farmer to keep up his lifestyle? I doubt it.

I assume you mean me? As I've stated before I don't have a car, I take PT. And I don't have a plasma TV, either, nor do I have cable. Turn off the TV, turn on your brain. As for opera, well, it's fun, just like a rock concert, and yes, I go to those too. But as for the farmer's money, yes, the city does need part of it--streets, sanitation, education, all cost money. Since big business gets tax breaks to bring jobs to the community, that means the burden is on citizens.

Does the farmer need the money payed into the system by the uppity city jackass with his SUV and opera tickets? Absolutely not.

First, I said I would try to be civil if you would. I'm trying. You can try harder.

Second, you seem to have an odd characterization of farmers. Most of the ones I've known from my rural upbringing were pretty "modern" folks, just as sophisticated and "uppity" as the city dweller (me) you have such little regard for. And, my understanding is, farmers often get paid NOT to grow anything. Where does that money come from?

Plus, the farmer needs the economic machine that sets prices for the foods he grows. Without that he can't sell his goods on the open market unless it's done entirely locally, and he usually can't make enough money doing that to keep up even his quiet lifestyle. Farm machinery is expensive to buy, operate and maintain. Seed costs money. So does fertilizer. The days of farmers being independent men of the Earth are long gone. He will always need something society provides, just as society needs the food he grows.

Property tax is modern feudalism. Simple as that. Pay you dues to the lord or his army will raze your land, rape your wife and if your lucky just throw you in jail. That's a human rights violation if ever there was one.

It's nowhere near that bad. Well, jail, yes, especially if you shoot at the people who come to collect. Again, democracy and socialism are intertwined. In a modern, industrialized society one comes with the other. The difference is in where the balance point is set. If you don't like how it's balanced right now, get involved in the process and change it.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The solutions I've seen posted here involve A) Hiding, B) Debate with no action to back it up, C) Violence. I offer a real, viable solution and everyone sh*ts on it.

Again, I yield this to you. But I don't see it as a problem because we are just exploring possibilities, and I never expect a real solution to surface, though I wouldn't mind one either. I apologize if it seems that I didn't honor your suggestion with the common respect it deserves. I know that it is not impossible that a political effort might 'resolve' (or at least improve) the situation. I am skeptical though because of two primary axioms that I hold

1 - The political system has been developed over time and as such it has been subject to the influence of those who's agenda is contrary to the citizens (perhaps that a bit presumptuous to say, I mean this is the way I perceive it). So I find it extremely difficult to place trust in a machine with little to no accountability or transparency. Yes participating in it from within may yield more knowledge and hence more influence from within, but if that is what's required then citizens truly are employees of the system and not the other way around.

2 - There is a leak in the system - through it, wealth has been moving to parts unknown. The leak didn't appear by magic, it was deliberately put there. Someone put it there. I suspect that's where the wealth is going. The body who's mandate includes protecting us from such things if fully source and manned by the 'political participants' you suggest I/we/anyone/everyone should join. Interestingly there was a time in my youth where I felt that I would have wanted to. Until I realized that the political system is closed, the best I could hope for would be to participate as some kind of cheerleader, because, if you don;t start from a certain social position, and unless you have been ''selected' by the 'proper' people - you can not hope to be anything other than a tool of the system as it exists now.

And [politics] can get us out again.

I disagree - because politics, as it exists today, is not an instrument of change. And to attempt to recast politics is to be labeled 'fringe' or some other unpleasant political label.

Again, I'm not saying you should just "trust the system"--I'm saying you must become part of the system, trust your own conscience and bend the system to your will. Whether you do that by running for office or getting rich and lobbying, it's up to you.

And I'm saying that 'becoming part of the system' is surrendering to the weakness inherent within it.

In fact, why don't you describe your ideal society in detail. We'll compare notes. Seriously, I would like to know what exactly you want.

Honestly, (no sarcasm), because I'm not that bright. The ideas I have are rather ill-defined and need major work. It would be hypocritical of me to produce as 'solutions' ideas that I really haven't hammered out. Maybe you have heard of the adage 'For every regulation we have created, we have had to create two more just to manage them' The same applies to my 'ideals' maybe someday I'll feel confident enough to oblige, at this moment however, I think I'd be setting myself up for a feeding frenzy.

..., the best way to do this is to become politically active and take back our government through legal, legitimate means.

I fear that the 'legal' legitimate' means are no longer at our disposal. Look at from my perspective. I believe that the IRS/FED activity in this country is rife with malicious abuse. I see people with objections, instead of being engaged by the system, coerced through force, socially stigmatized, enrolled as criminals in the system, and discarded as unacceptable persons. This does not inspire my confidence. especially considering that we are deflected every time we demand transparency from the system. I dread the day when the declaration is made that the average American citizen cannot judge the government because we are too feeble and or ignorant. Imagine having to have a degree to be a citizen? We're getting there. And the body politic is not even recognizing the trend - let alone resisting it. They are much too busy deciding how to best use the 'super-delegates' to override the common will of one group within the system, while the other is almost exclusively focused on 'firing up' the voters with inflammatory rhetoric and saber rattling.

Yet the people are left wondering if they are actually supposed to believe that people like this 60-year old future mass-murdering anti-governmental anarchist are the cause of all our societal and financial woes. How long before the sound bites begin regarding where people like this tax-dissenter should be sent, and what should happen to them.?

By the way, in case it's been unclear, I have thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, we may disagree - but I suspect you understand its not about being hateful, aggressive, or forceful for the sake of argument. I think we both care deeply about this. This gentleman/criminal's story has brought to the depth of the issues behind the law and the manner of it's execution.

Sadly, I fear that nowhere will it get more in depth coverage or review than it has here.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Maxmars]

I keep seeing long arguments about the legality and necessity of taxes.

Sure, taxes pay for some things.


But don't forget, according to our laws, some taxes are permitted, some strictly ARE NOT!


For example, a direct, unapportioned tax on the people is strictly forbidden! What this means is that to tax a person directly, and not in an amount equal to what everyone else is taxed, is not a method the government may use to get funding. In other words, the "income tax" is illegal.


Why?


1) First, it taxes some people and yet leaves others alone, and yet demands a great deal from others. If we all owe our dues as Americans, we all should pay the same amount in some logical proportion.


2) Second, "income" as we understand it is an exchange of our talents, time, and effort for money. This is an exchange. No different than saying I'll trade you my apple for your orange. Can you imagine if suddenly an agent stepped in and said "Now you must give me 30% of that orange!"??

"Income" as defined in tax law is PROFIT from running a CORPORATION. It is NOT defined as any part of an exchange of goods between two parties. If the second definition were the meaning of "income", then every time anything of value changes hands, the government should step in and tax it!


NEVER FORGET:

United States Courts have determined that the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government, but a privately-owned run-for-profit corporation, no different than Coca-Cola or Federal Express.

The IRS is also a non-governmental agency, which actually operates out of PUERTO RICO, not the United States!

The Grace Commission report has determined that ALL of the United States income tax revenues go to pay for the interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve, and not one single cent remains to pay for government services.

reply to post by ianr5741


You have clearly done your homework. Star for you. If you were to present this to the average citizen they would call you a liar [at best].

reply to post by ianr5741


Heck Wesley Snipers got off on not paying his taxes he just got it for not filing his returns www.msnbc.msn.com...

They will pursue him in civil court they say.... hmmm