U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,117 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988

Advertisements

The Crime of Doing As Little As Possible

What is the crime of doing as little as possible? The crime is not spelled out in any statute or constitution or court decision. However, it is there, in plain view - if you take time to see it.

Examples of criminalization
[] You cannot just "own" land (real estate), without paying a tax burden, thus you have to do MORE or lose your land.
[] You cannot just grow enough food for yourself, on your land. The tax burden requires that you grow a surplus to sell, or perform some other service, for money, with which to pay taxes.
[] You cannot just "own" a building (real estate), without paying a tax. And if you rent out any portion of it, you are obligated to pay a share of the earnings (taxable income).

If one is harmlessly doing as little as possible, in support of their right to life, why penalize it?
Answer: Because you're not a sovereign, and you're someone's slave. In short, you are not permitted to "just live" without first satisfying the demands of the "protection racket".

Some might argue that we MUST pay taxes to support public schools, fire departments, and police forces. I would simply ask: why? Why should any free American condone compulsive taxation for the benefit of someone else?

If you want your children educated, why should anyone else pay for it? And if you have no children, why should you pay for the education of your neighbor's children? You have no choice in what they learn, nor are they grateful to you for your sacrifice.

If there's a fire, and the fire department saves your building, why not just pay their expenses for that specific incident? Set up a payment schedule and pay what you owe.

If you went to the trouble and expense to make your building fire resistant, with non-combustible materials, fire suppression sprinklers, and good design, why should you bear the cost for a service that won't benefit you? In fact, it penalizes you for taking the extra expense and rewards those who did the least to defend their property. (It gets worse - if they had fire insurance, that you contributed premiums to, and they get a settlement, you were robbed twice.)

What about police?
Don't we need a police force to deter criminals?

A police force is under no compulsion to protect everyone's life and property. In fact, they cannot guarantee protection, nor can you sue for failure to protect. Ultimately, the responsibility is yours - to defend your right to life and property from attack. So why are you obligated to pay for the professionals who are more likely to be ordered to protect the elite and their street, than the meek and mild populace who pays the bulk of the bills? In fact, thanks to the widespread police forces, we have so much crime that America has the world's greatest percentage of people in jail, and crime on the streets has not diminished, but expanded. For example, the theft and destruction of expensive air conditioners for the meager copper piping - a paltry reward. We would be better off without any police, if the majority of the population were armed and trained in the use of their firearms and other tools of self defense. Furthermore, anyone who shot and or killed a felon in the commission of a crime would rate a reward and compensation for any ammunition expended.

I have specifically omitted the burdens of socialism, which are too numerous to attend to, in so short an essay.

Rolling back American government to pre-Socialist size and authority may not be enough. We may have to seriously consider the complete roll back to the basic job description: secure rights and govern by consent of the governed. And that means even the taxes must be based on consent, and never imposed on rights and liberties secured by the original organic compact.

To reach that "NEW" America might be too large a gulf to cross - at this point in time. But let us keep it in mind - just in case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2009, 07:01 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,910,304 times
Reputation: 5750
So you support 100% chaos and no country at all. Just land with people who live exclusively by "survival of the fittest". So you see...

This is a country.

We live here by choice.

There is a government(s) in this country.

That government has certain constitutional obligations towards us, the citizens of the country.

To meet those obligations, they have the right, that we gave them, to raise taxes.

One may rightly argue as to how the tax money is spent, but we have a free and somewhat fair voting method whereby majority predominately rules.

You can b****.

You can moan.

You can call for anarchy you seem to love so dearly.

But if you don't like it.

Move the f*** away from this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post

To meet those obligations, they have the right, that we gave them, to raise taxes.

I don't recall the citizens ever giving the government the right to levy an income tax. I assume you were referring to income tax, although for that matter I don't recall people ever consenting (or being asked to consent to) any property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.

The first major income tax, which Lincoln enacted at bayonet point during his war against the Confederate States of America, was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

The government has no moral right or obligation to take money from everybody and distribute it as they see fit. We're basically a communist country with a government that plays the role of the central planning committee. The only thing missing is that they don't directly take ownership of the means of production or the output, but they have a major hand in how things operate and in where the money goes.

They don't need to do something as drastic as ban guns since they know most people are stupid enough to believe they're free even though they're hopelessly enslaved. Banning guns would just give them a major hint that they're not as free as they like to them. It's far easier to let them keep their guns and the illusion they're free, than having to go about disarming them and letting them realize they're not free.

If you don't pay property taxes armed men with guns will come after you, on behalf of the government, and take you to prison while your house is seized. Can anybody honestly tell me that they own their house? Even if you don't have a mortgage you don't own your home! You have it only as long as you pay the government not to take it away from you. The government owns it! The Central Planning Committee (your friendly government) decides how long you can have that house and what the terms for keeping it are.

Are you really free? Do you own the fruits of your labor? If you don't agree to have 20-30% of your wages taken from you, you will be arrested, thrown in prison, and "your" assets (such as "your" house) will be seized and auctioned. Tell me again how you're really free?

America is a communist country in all but name. The idiots think because the leaders shout about freedom and the preachers sing about liberty, that they really have freedom and liberty. It's a relatively soft communism, no MVD or internal police rolling down the streets in BMPs and BTRs, but if you step on some toes you'll get the Ruby Ridge or Waco treatment. Tell me again how you're really free?

We're a two-party communist state, with both parties agreeing on the fundamental idea that the people should fear the government and obey the government. As a matter of basic platforms, both parties are identical when it comes to issues such as the existence of income tax, property tax, etc, and on issues such as the militarization of police, foreign policy, perpetual wars, etc. They may differ on cosmetic issues (gays, abortion, "assault weapons," and oil drilling in protected areas) but neither party will ever champion the cause of restoring Constitutional government. Both parties are firmly in favor of the current communist system in place in the United States of America.

The American people PROBABLY would never have stood for Red banners on every telephone pole, gulags scattered across the nation, standing internal security units equipped with tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, huge networks of secret police, civilian informants, overt nationalization of all key industry and financial institutions, as well as direct government ownership of all major property and housing. That's why the communists took the backdoor approach and began introducing "soft communism" to the American people, little by little, year by year, decade by decade. Here we are today, the USSA, another broke-ass tinpot communist "peoples republic." The people shout so much about freedom they don't realize they're slaves.

The Marxists blame all of our problems on free markets, but we've never really had free markets! Then they offer the solution as "socialism" or "communism" (as Lenin once said, the goal of socialism is communism). Imagine you've swallowed some hemlock and the doctor suggests you drink more hemlock! They shove communism down our throats, things start to fail as they always will (communism is bad on paper and even worse when implemented), then they say the problems are due to the lack of socialism/communism!

Last edited by OhioUberAlles; 03-05-2009 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Barrington
41,862 posts, read 31,725,984 times
Reputation: 14079
Many of the Ilamic countries do not impose taxes.

Perhaps you might consider living in one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Many of the Ilamic countries do not impose taxes.

Perhaps you might consider living in one of them.

I'd rather take back my country from the communist usurpers. The Founding Fathers didn't pack up and leave just because times were tough and oppression was rife.

I don't pack up and leave. I don't believe in "America love it or leave it" nor do I believe in "my country right or wrong." When what America is is a communist harlot and what it does is wrong, I am going to speak out about it and take every opportunity to work to correct the situation.

Cowards pack their bags and flee when the trouble begins. America is a land in dire straits, we've been in trouble for decades, perhaps even close to two centuries, but things are really coming to front and center now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,117 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post
So you support 100% chaos and no country at all. Just land with people who live exclusively by "survival of the fittest". So you see...

JG: NO. I do not support chaos. What led you to jump to such a conclusion?
But I can see that you are troubled by the post. Perhaps it touched a raw nerve?


This is a country.
JG: The United States of America are each promised a republican form of government, not a democratic socialist police state, with compulsory duties.

We live here by choice.
There is a government(s) in this country.
That government has certain constitutional obligations towards us, the citizens of the country.

JG: Not according to their constitutions. They are delegated certain powers to help secure our rights, but they are under no obligation to secure EVERYONE'S rights, nor can you sue them when they fail.


To meet those obligations, they have the right, that we gave them, to raise taxes.

JG: The constitutional delegations to tax are limited. (Ex: Imposts, excises, and duties laid upon privileges). However, you are probably not aware that socialist taxation was instituted by consent derived from the fraudulent belief that one must enroll and get "the number" before one can work in his own country.


One may rightly argue as to how the tax money is spent, but we have a free and somewhat fair voting method whereby majority predominately rules.

JG: The democratic socialist government is not free nor based upon fairness. Even the judicial system is corrupt beyond belief.
A cheap civics lesson can be had by spending 2 weeks in your local county courthouse, attending a variety of trials. I will guess that in 85% of the cases, you will witness gross incompetence by various public servants and questionable violations of rights.


You can b****. You can moan.

You can call for anarchy you seem to love so dearly.
But if you don't like it. Move the f*** away from this country.
JG: You misunderstand the republican form of government. Where there is a sovereign, there is no anarchy *(absence of law). Sovereigns ARE the law, or they wouldn't be supreme.
For an example of sovereign prerogative, one need only examine the legal authority to impose capital punishment without benefit of trial. I refer to the case where private property is posted: "No Trespassing - trespassers will be shot!".
(I do not refer to qualified ownership of real estate, which is not accorded the same rights as is private property)

However, such common law rights of the sovereign people have been deliberately erased from the curriculum of "American Socialism".
Therefore, I would suggest that you refrain from mistaken assumptions based on subjugation to the collective State.

In reference to the original posting - do you feel that it is a good thing to compel all people to pay taxes?
And if you do, what do you feel about Obama's nominees who failed in their duty to pay taxes? Are they suspect, or does it shed a bad light on the complexity of the tax system? Or are they merely hiding the fact that they were avoiding their tax bill, by not consenting to be taxed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,117 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Many of the Islamic countries do not impose taxes.
Technically speaking, America doesn't impose taxation on its sovereign people - the individuals who absolutely own private property.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein." - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title. - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218

Did someone forget to tell us that estate (i.e. real estate), held with qualified ownership, is not private property? Did someone forget to mention that only estate is subject to taxation? Why weren't we told that American people are sovereign?
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
Who led us to believe that we can only claim to be subject citizens?
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Methinks we have all been victims of disinformation. Because all this information about American sovereigns is found in every county courthouse law library.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 08:17 AM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,910,304 times
Reputation: 5750
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
I don't recall the citizens ever giving the government the right to levy an income tax. I assume you were referring to income tax, although for that matter I don't recall people ever consenting (or being asked to consent to) any property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.

The first major income tax, which Lincoln enacted at bayonet point during his war against the Confederate States of America, was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

The government has no moral right or obligation to take money from everybody and distribute it as they see fit. We're basically a communist country with a government that plays the role of the central planning committee. The only thing missing is that they don't directly take ownership of the means of production or the output, but they have a major hand in how things operate and in where the money goes.

They don't need to do something as drastic as ban guns since they know most people are stupid enough to believe they're free even though they're hopelessly enslaved. Banning guns would just give them a major hint that they're not as free as they like to them. It's far easier to let them keep their guns and the illusion they're free, than having to go about disarming them and letting them realize they're not free.

If you don't pay property taxes armed men with guns will come after you, on behalf of the government, and take you to prison while your house is seized. Can anybody honestly tell me that they own their house? Even if you don't have a mortgage you don't own your home! You have it only as long as you pay the government not to take it away from you. The government owns it! The Central Planning Committee (your friendly government) decides how long you can have that house and what the terms for keeping it are.

Are you really free? Do you own the fruits of your labor? If you don't agree to have 20-30% of your wages taken from you, you will be arrested, thrown in prison, and "your" assets (such as "your" house) will be seized and auctioned. Tell me again how you're really free?

America is a communist country in all but name. The idiots think because the leaders shout about freedom and the preachers sing about liberty, that they really have freedom and liberty. It's a relatively soft communism, no MVD or internal police rolling down the streets in BMPs and BTRs, but if you step on some toes you'll get the Ruby Ridge or Waco treatment. Tell me again how you're really free?

We're a two-party communist state, with both parties agreeing on the fundamental idea that the people should fear the government and obey the government. As a matter of basic platforms, both parties are identical when it comes to issues such as the existence of income tax, property tax, etc, and on issues such as the militarization of police, foreign policy, perpetual wars, etc. They may differ on cosmetic issues (gays, abortion, "assault weapons," and oil drilling in protected areas) but neither party will ever champion the cause of restoring Constitutional government. Both parties are firmly in favor of the current communist system in place in the United States of America.

The American people PROBABLY would never have stood for Red banners on every telephone pole, gulags scattered across the nation, standing internal security units equipped with tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, huge networks of secret police, civilian informants, overt nationalization of all key industry and financial institutions, as well as direct government ownership of all major property and housing. That's why the communists took the backdoor approach and began introducing "soft communism" to the American people, little by little, year by year, decade by decade. Here we are today, the USSA, another broke-ass tinpot communist "peoples republic." The people shout so much about freedom they don't realize they're slaves.

The Marxists blame all of our problems on free markets, but we've never really had free markets! Then they offer the solution as "socialism" or "communism" (as Lenin once said, the goal of socialism is communism). Imagine you've swallowed some hemlock and the doctor suggests you drink more hemlock! They shove communism down our throats, things start to fail as they always will (communism is bad on paper and even worse when implemented), then they say the problems are due to the lack of socialism/communism!

The US Constitution, Article 1

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 08:25 AM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,910,304 times
Reputation: 5750
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
JG: You misunderstand the republican form of government. Where there is a sovereign, there is no anarchy *(absence of law). Sovereigns ARE the law, or they wouldn't be supreme.
For an example of sovereign prerogative, one need only examine the legal authority to impose capital punishment without benefit of trial. I refer to the case where private property is posted: "No Trespassing - trespassers will be shot!".
(I do not refer to qualified ownership of real estate, which is not accorded the same rights as is private property)
However, such common law rights of the sovereign people have been deliberately erased from the curriculum of "American Socialism".
Therefore, I would suggest that you refrain from mistaken assumptions based on subjugation to the collective State.

In reference to the original posting - do you feel that it is a good thing to compel all people to pay taxes?
And if you do, what do you feel about Obama's nominees who failed in their duty to pay taxes? Are they suspect, or does it shed a bad light on the complexity of the tax system? Or are they merely hiding the fact that they were avoiding their tax bill, by not consenting to be taxed?
No, I fully understand a republican form of gevernment. It is government by the people, of the people and for the people. And since the people have appointed the government to raise taxes for various things, then that is how the people want it. Period.

As to "compelling" people to pay taxes- that was the decision the majority of the people have made and continue to make. One can certainly argue that taxes are too high, too complex and are too often wasted, but we remember that we have a system of "no taxation without representation". All of us are represented, and if we didn't want taxes then that's the way it would be. If we wanted a less complex form of taxation, then elect somebody else who will support those ideas. If you can't, then you find yourself in the minority in a coutry where we are generally governed by the majority and you'll have to suck it up. Maybe use this as a grass roots level political crusade and see how many people join you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,488,886 times
Reputation: 4104
Anarchy sounds good till you put it in practice, then there's no police supported by taxes to keep the criminals in jail, no fire departments to put your house out once a criminal sets it on fire, no public water to put out that fire, no legal system to get your house back with police enforcement after a group of people take it. Also no federal protections...no Army if some one invades the borders of the country, no requirement you receive treatment at a hospital if you are hurt no matter the ability to pay, no medical help if you are old or poor, no minimum wage requirement, and no enforcement of labor laws (and the list could go on).

Currently presence and being allowed to vote are the requirement of acceptance in the social contract the government needs to enforce the body of laws accepted by the majority in the US...a contract by each individual is not required, and honestly it's a big waste of resources. You can either leave and move to another country (I hear the Sudan has no taxes, and you certainly have the right to defend your home...good luck against a group), or attempt to change opinion of the majority and of the representatives (I find that very unlikely). As long as you are in the borders of the US you have accepted the social contract, and accepted the duties and responsibilities that come with it...if you wish to get out of it then there are other places to live.

Also, it's a common mistake to say the government does not have the authority to impose income taxes...Blazer got the first part, plus add in the 100 years of legal precedent that refutes that idea as well. If you are a user of said resource you are required to pay, and since you can't black out certain blocks from protection like that you are a user as long as you are in the country.

If you really want no taxes and every homestead to be a self sufficient fortress protecting their own with deadly force, go for it. The Wild West ended a long time ago, and for a good reason.

Last edited by subsound; 03-06-2009 at 01:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top