7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

The State of Indiana took the unusual step of issuing 7,000 violent threats of arrest against its citizens in a single day for failing to pay their taxes (protection money).

The huge issuance of violent threats in a single day caused a massive congestion of citizens trying to fork over their hard earned money to state collection agents, jamming the city/county building where the collections took place full of innocent citizen victims.

The State agency responsible for issuing the threats of violence promised not to issue more than 1000 threats in a single day from now on in order to prevent congestion of victims in the building.

One victim was quoted as saying:

"I'm 77 years old. Why would you have a 77-year-old woman coming down here standing in line?" said Beulah Owens. "I just forgot to mail my taxes. When you get old, you do these things."

Hi.

This title is misleading.
They weren't "violently" threatened.

Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.

Source

Hey, here's an idea.
Pay your damn taxes.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Violence:

a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

Since arrest involves the use of armed threats and physical force, we can say quite literally that people who do not pay their protection money face the violent use of force against their person.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

I actually like the term "violent" better in terms of its definition.

1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

Violence can be considered carrying out a violent act.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Arrest

An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the investigation and prevention of crime or harm to others and oneself as well.

No mention of violence there.

Violence is only encountered at the choice of the arrested.

Edited to add...

Pay your damn taxes


[edit on 24-8-2010 by Demoncreeper]

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Threat

A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response. It is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person. It is a crime in many jurisdictions. Libertarians hold that a palpable, immediate, and direct threat of aggression, embodied in the initiation of an overt act, is equivalent to aggression itself, and that proportionate defensive force would be justified in response to such a threat, if a clear and present danger exists.[1]

Arrest involves the use of violent threats and/or physical violence.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

That old woman could be trouble. If she's forgetting to pay up her usefulness to the state has ended. She is obsolete and as a burden should be removed. To think she has the audacity to question or even complain as a burden. Disgusting animal.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
That old woman could be trouble. If she's forgetting to pay up her usefulness to the state has ended. She is obsolete and as a burden should be removed. To think she has the audacity to question or even complain as a burden. Disgusting animal.

Sir, I concur.

Hopefully she learned her lesson.

Otherwise I will personally don a black uniform and haul her into the State penitentiary myself.

Letting plebes walk around thinking they have a right to keep the fruits of their own labor can only lead to trouble.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Taxes should be something you're happy to pay, as in "yay, we finally get to implement the social programs we all voted to pursue. Yayyy!"


Don't you think?

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Taxes should be something you're happy to pay, as in "yay, we finally get to implement the social programs we all voted to pursue. Yayyy!"


Don't you think?

In the days before the government turned into a mafia protection racket, a solid portion of the government's revenue came from charity donations.

That is to say, people donated to government freely because they felt it provided good services that they enjoyed.

This didn't last long of course, as the government soon morphed into a criminal Stasi enforcement agency run by tyrant oligarchs under the control of banks and special interest groups.

Almost all federal revenue came from trade tariffs and charity during the early years of our now criminal government.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Kaytagg


No no no no. Clearly it's best that a gun be put to our heads and hands thrust into our wallets to fund the programs a mass of drones coached by control freak career politicians decided we have.

Fear and misery are always preferable to satisfaction and results.

At least they must be preferable. Why else would so many choose it and why else would our all-knowing and all-loving government keep it that way for so long?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Blame democracy, or blame the people who live in this country.. Probably the ladder, as the idea of democracy isn't inherently wrong or bad, but the people of America sure are retarded, which explains why democracy has failed so miserably.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Blame democracy, or blame the people who live in this country.. Probably the ladder, as the idea of democracy isn't inherently wrong or bad, but the people of America sure are retarded, which explains why democracy has failed so miserably.

Democracy is mob rule.

Mob rule inherently violates the rights of the individual.

Democracy is arguably worse than a monarchy in many ways. What is certainly worse than a monarchy is elected republic rule, since this completely detaches the public from the business of legislating law.

Hoppe has put forth some reasoned analysis showing that monarchs actually run a country better than republic rule because they tend to have a longer term outlook on ensuring the nations prosperity.

They also face the constant threat of revolution, since the public knows there is no election and that revolution is the only effective way to rid themselves of an intolerable monarch.

Under our current system, the people tolerate tyranny for longer periods of time, falsely assuming they can change things through the electoral process.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Taxes should be something you're happy to pay, as in "yay, we finally get to implement the social programs we all voted to pursue. Yayyy!"


Don't you think?

In the days before the government turned into a mafia protection racket, a solid portion of the government's revenue came from charity donations.

That is to say, people donated to government freely because they felt it provided good services that they enjoyed.

This didn't last long of course, as the government soon morphed into a criminal Stasi enforcement agency run by tyrant oligarchs under the control of banks and special interest groups.

Almost all federal revenue came from trade tariffs and charity during the early years of our now criminal government.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

What?
Much worse BEFORE the organized crime of government.

www.taxworld.org...

So what, should we send them lollipops and love notes for the 10th time, requesting they graciously pay the money they have faulted on over the years?

Something tells me you would not "donate" to any government. haha.

So are you advocating for a monarchy? Or what form of govt do you think we should have?

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I said during the early years of OUR government (ie. the AMERICAN government).

Originally posted by rakkasansct
So are you advocating for a monarchy? Or what form of govt do you think we should have?

no, I'm arguing for no State.

We should have a private law government administered by private common law courts.

I won't disagree that funds are terribly misappropriated.
I won't disagree that their could be a better way.

Propose it?

If 7000 people owed you money, you'd be on it.
Tactless, yes. Necessary, yes.
Violent. NOT.

Either way, people have been paying the gov't, essentially to keep order, supply and services.

Could be worse here. We could pay taxes, live in absolute crap and get NOTHING in return.

reply to post by mnemeth1


We can change things through the elctoral process. When is the last time anybody gave a non-MSM candidate more than 5 minutes, then dismissed them as "crazy," or "unelectable."

Btw, if you think there is going to be some kind of armed conflict resolution to your perceived problems with america, whether real or fake, it's not going to happen. I hope you fully understand that trying to overthrow the government through violence isn't an option.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


So threatening arrest of debtors does not involve violence?

I have a hard time following your logic.

So if I refused to pay, the police should hand me a lollipop and tell me I'm a bad person?