Work For Government? You Are A Criminal

Some criminals have argued that they don't actually use a gun to force people into submission and loot them of their property.

I disagree.

I formerly worked for a county treasury in the property tax collection department.

If a person fails to pay their share of protection money to the State criminals, the state will send the Sheriff with guns to evict them of their property.

Then the State will sell the property at auction for tax sale.

This requires the use of guns.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I formerly worked for a county treasury in the property tax collection department.

Have you returned all the money you made while in that position?

Or do you just talk the talk and not walk the walk???

reply to post by mnemeth1


While all the arguments supporting taxation thus far have been fallacious, pretending that roads, and schools and public safety could never exist without government, and while I agree with you that the IRS has, at least to some degree, operated as a criminal organization, and in spite of the British journalist taking you to task for your rhetoric, (ring, ring, hello Kettle? This is Pot; you're black! click.), I would take you to task as well, although not so much for your rhetoric as much as your willingness to ignore that we the people are the government and hold the inherent political power at all times.

What this means in term of a criminal tax collection agency, that all too often operates outside of the scope of its jurisdiction, is who can really blame them when we the people, by far and large, have not even bothered to read the tax code, just to see if we are indeed liable for this so called "income tax". It is real easy to post a reply and declare; "Right on brother! Down with the tax man!", but that rhetoric is as every bit as empty as the government sycophants that wring their virtual hands and ask; "but what about the roads, what about the schools, what about public safety?"

If people aren't even willing to glance at the tax code, let alone read it for themselves and assess their own liability based upon an understanding of the law, then it should be no surprise that they willingly assess their own liability simply because others, including British journalists, tell them they are liable.

If people live in an area that has a high crime rate, and when leaving their houses, leave their doors wide open, it should not come as any surprise when they return that they have been burglarized.

Income taxation in perpetuity is a crime, this I wholeheartedly agree with, but each year people file a "valid" return, that functions as a contract, and sign under penalty of perjury that "all the above is true and correct". Not all the income I have reported is true and correct, mind you, but that "all the above is true and correct". Very few people find fault with signing that sort of contract, and again, are all to willing to take the advice of foreign press on the matter, and this is as much a part of the problem as criminal tax collectors.

Further, a government can run just fine by levying defeat-able taxes, meaning taxes laid upon specific activities, where a person has the option to not partake in such an activity and thereby not liable for any tax. Defeat-able taxes are not levied at the point of a gun, and can work just fine in establishing a government, and also do a damn fine job of keeping that government reigned in to do no more than it was mandated to do by Constitution.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That is the argument elitists tell themselves to make themselves feel better about looting.

"Yeah, I may be doing wrong, but the victim is actually to blame for my crime because he could have taken some simple steps to prevent me from looting him but he didn't. Therefore he deserves to be suckered."

Similar to the "I raped her because she was asking for it with with her slutty clothing" argument we get from rapists.


Its a weak argument.




[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yours is the argument victims tell themselves when they feel helpless and too lazy to actually read the so called "laws" that are being shoved down their throats. Such an argument is so weak it deserves no respect at all.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Yours is the argument victims tell themselves when they feel helpless and too lazy to actually read the so called "laws" that are being shoved down their throats. Such an argument is so weak it deserves no respect at all.

I simply pointing out the obvious.

The State is a criminal organization of looters that uses violence against the public to achieve all of its ends.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by Awory
So postal workers, highway construction workers, teachers, sanitation workers, and other numerous others produce nothing? I think they would like to take you to task about it.

Correct, they don't produce anything. Road construction CONSUMES. Unless they put in a toll booth, then it's just raping for more taxes to pay for something that was already built and paid for. Income tax doesn't pay for roads anyway, that comes from a voluntary tax on products. I also pay for my sanitation services, teachers should not be gov't funded to begin with. Education should be handled 100% locally, keep the gov'ts paws of education.

Of course, we could have a friendly corporation run your water systems, your highways, carry the mail, and perform other tasks as such. But then again, they will be 'pointing the gun' at someone, now won't they?

I get my good clean water out of the ground, not water contaminated with fluoride and chlorine. see my post above for the others.

I have to absolutely laugh at your lack of knowledge here! I'm a Brit and I know more about where your tax money goes than you do.

Money for road construction at your local level may come from sales taxes and DMV fees but how then does the federal government pay for the Interstate Highway System, and the money they give to state for other road projects seeing as there is no federal sales tax in the United Sates?

Furthermore, just because you do not agree with a service such as the water works or government education does not mean it does not exist! So you are denying that the government provides services simply because you do not think it should. That is one of the worst lines of argumentation I have ever heard on this site not just because it is misguided but because it does not follow reality.

Let me simply add in a few more here that have not been mentioned yet:

Services: Food & Drug Administration, Centers For Disease Control, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, The National Parks Service, Amtrak, Conrail (1976-1987)

Products: General Motors Products, Electricity through the Tennessee Valley Authority, The Dollar through the Federal Reserve

Holdings and Property: Too numerous to list, the United States Federal Government is the largest property holder in America.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The state is using force today, and I am simply pointing out the obvious as well, that people hold the inherent political power at all times and can change this situation when they are ready to do so, but you chose to call that argument "elitist". Victimology won't defeat a criminal state, it takes far more courage than that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The state is using force today, and I am simply pointing out the obvious as well, that people hold the inherent political power at all times and can change this situation when they are ready to do so, but you chose to call that argument "elitist". Victimology won't defeat a criminal state, it takes far more courage than that.

I would disagree.

I hold no power to change the situation other than to retaliate with violence myself. Such an action would be futile on my part, therefore I hold no power to change the situation. Ultimately, the State would either kill me or capture me should I chose to resist their aggression.

The assumption that the public at large has power is not true when one considers the nature of a democracy that has no constitutional limitations.

It is correct to say 51% of the public has power, but not "the public" in general.

If 51% of the public wants to loot the other 49%, they can do that in a democracy quite easily.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The state is using force today, and I am simply pointing out the obvious as well, that people hold the inherent political power at all times and can change this situation when they are ready to do so, but you chose to call that argument "elitist". Victimology won't defeat a criminal state, it takes far more courage than that.

I would disagree.

I hold no power to change the situation other than to retaliate with violence myself. Such an action would be futile on my part, therefore I hold no power to change the situation. Ultimately, the State would either kill me or capture me should I chose to resist their aggression.

The assumption that the public at large has power is not true when one considers the nature of a democracy that has no constitutional limitations.

It is correct to say 51% of the public has power, but not "the public" in general.

If 51% of the public wants to loot the other 49%, they can do that in a democracy quite easily.

You are forgetting the power of convincing. You are absolutely right that it would be futile for you personally to violently rise up against your government, but you can use your words and ideas in order to convince that 51% of the population that you are right, therefore not even needing to utilize violence.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
You are forgetting the power of convincing. You are absolutely right that it would be futile for you personally to violently rise up against your government, but you can use your words and ideas in order to convince that 51% of the population that you are right, therefore not even needing to utilize violence.

I like the expression:

Money talks and bullshat walks

Since 51% of the public is directly benefiting from the looting, it puts my simple words at a disadvantage when trying to convince them to cease their looting.

Lets use a liquor store robbery as an example:

If I am a clerk at a liquor store being held up at gun point, your argument is that I should simply talk to the robber and convince him using words that his actions are wrong and will ultimately destroy the society he lives in.

This is a ridiculous notion.

The looter will only cease his actions when confronted with equal force from the clerk.

I want to be clear, I am not advocating violence, I'm simply stating an obvious fact of life here.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

I hold no power to change the situation other than to retaliate with violence myself. Such an action would be futile on my part, therefore I hold no power to change the situation. Ultimately, the State would either kill me or capture me should I chose to resist their aggression.

Helplessness won't accomplish a thing. Gandhi led a nation in defeating the single most powerful empire in history, and did so through non violent resistance to that empire. Digging a ditch just so you can bury a ditch is futile, resisting the Borg isn't. If you value life in servitude to a state you clearly abhor, then why bother with all this rhetoric? I suppose the British journalist was right to call you on your rhetoric, although I had thought you had more courage than that.

The assumption that the public at large has power is not true when one considers the nature of a democracy that has no constitutional limitations.

If you are including the government known as the United States of America in your screed, then the assumption that it is a democracy instead of a Constitutional republic designed to keep democracies in check is not true. Your protestations of helplessness do no one any good, and either people will come to cherish their rights above government entitlements, or they will join you in your victimology.

It is correct to say 51% of the public has power, but not "the public" in general.

If you care to dismiss the Bill of Rights that say's otherwise this is your choice, but as a point of law, your argument has no validity.

If 51% of the public wants to loot the other 49%, they can do that in a democracy quite easily.

Are you selling democracy, or railing against it? I can't tell at this point. Plunder is plunder, regardless of what form of government is in place. There is a Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, that makes clear that We the People are the holders of the inherent political power, and virtually every state constitution endeavors to make it even more clear. You can ignore that in order to justify your sense of helplessness, but really then, what is the point of this thread?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Your arguments assume we have a function constitutional government.

We do not.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

I am against democracy.

I am against constitutional republics because they do not work.

In fact, I am against all government period - because it is nothing more than a legalized monopoly on force.

I think a private law society that operates without any government monopolies on force would produce superior results.

Originally posted by SkyMarshall
You forget, sir.

Those who work for the government, who bring your mail, who protect what freedoms you have left, still pay taxes too.

SM

Who is protecting a single freedom these days?

Military? Nope.

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by SkyMarshall
You forget, sir.

Those who work for the government, who bring your mail, who protect what freedoms you have left, still pay taxes too.

SM

Who is protecting a single freedom these days?

Military? Nope.

I formerly served in the Gulf as well.

In fact, most of my adult life has been in government service.

What did I accomplish while serving the Gulf?

I prevented private business owners from transacting with each other.

I helped enforce sanctions on shipping in the Gulf and aided in causing great economic harm to the Iraqi public.

That's what I accomplished.

Thanks to my actions, the Iraqi people are poorer today.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I am fully aware you are against all governments, but you do a damn fine job of selling democracies just that same.

You may think private law society is far superior, and you may have just payed lip service to it, but only after declaring yourself powerless, and too frightened to resist tyranny. Do you imagine tyranny will just crawl under a rock under your far superior system?

I would love to see free market principles in play. I would love to see law recognized for what it is, and not watch so many people worship legislation, but I assure you, rhetoric alone won't get us there. If we can't lead by example, and believe we can lead by rhetoric alone, we are not leaders, we are just whiners with a following.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Your arguments assume we have a function constitutional government.

We do not.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

I am against democracy.

I am against constitutional republics because they do not work.

In fact, I am against all government period - because it is nothing more than a legalized monopoly on force.

I think a private law society that operates without any government monopolies on force would produce superior results.

At this point you are only trying to justify your own charade of crankery. If you want to get moving, change the world and have your ideas weighted in the public sphere for any merit they may hold, get on it. Make some money, fund your philosophical revolution, or take the Gandhi route and be the man of grace in the face of hideousness.

If not, stop wasting our time complaining and posting how much woe it is to be you, a head full of ideas but finding every reason in the world to not lift a finger to do anything about them.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


If you are so against "government" employees...then you should stop using public roads, public libraries, public schools, police department, fire department. You should never visit national parks or monuments...never collect social security or medicare. You should not have a drivers license, passport, or social security card. You should never vote or contact your senator or representative. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. You should not own a firearm. You should not own a business. You should not use electricity or any oil products. You should not eat food grown by American farmers. Basically you should live in a powerless shack and grow your own food...while illegally squating on land you don't own and not paying taxes on.

All the above takes GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES to run smoothly. And yes...they should be paid by tax money.

Are you serious with that tripe?

Owning a firearm is made easy by government employees?

Government does nothing but INTERFERE with freedom.

I own a business, and all government does is make things harder.

I own numerous firearms, again, made more expensive and difficult by government.

I would gladly opt out of social security and medicare in the blink of an eye. Just tell me how.

Originally posted by mnemeth1I formerly worked for a county treasury in the property tax collection department.

Jesus wept.

So you were a government employee, but aren't now ?

You know, I'd take your criticism of government employees more seriously had you not already taken the King's Shilling.

So why the change in your employment status now ? Do you mind me asking ? Did you have a dazzling revelation one night and resign from your position on a point of principle ?

And where does that leave you ? An ex-criminal, absolved of all your bad doings through the medium of resignation ? I think not *cough*

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I think I'm doing my fair share to stop the State violence against the public.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that it has little effect given that looters only respond to violence.

I operate a blog, post on message boards, submit articles to news sources, produce videos, donate to political campaigns, etc.. etc... which is more than 99.9% of the general public does in this regard.

I will continue to do what I do, but its not going to stop the destruction of our currency or put an end to the looting.