Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007  (Read 15061 times)

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2007, 07:49:14 pm »

  How do we pay for such societal order, but through taxation?  Let's face it...the voluntary utopia of anarchy is about as fallacious as the utopia of communism, so government controlled rules and order is a requirement.

As far as the income tax is concerned, I don't like it.  I believe its foundation and origination is sketchy at best. But to insist that it does not exist, and is not here to stay is given the same reception as a UFO conspiracy theory. 

Here we go again.
Why do you people join a forum that is clearly based on freedoms and libertarian views and then try to convince us we need the things we are trying to get away from.

I see that you just joined and have made four posts so far. Not one introducing yourself by saying "Hello, I'm from....."  but all four trying to convince us we need taxes.
I don't get it? Why not join the Democratic Underground forum? Why join a freedom based forum?
Are you just Trolling?


And as far as the income tax and Ed Brown’s situation, I think he’s right. The income tax is legal, regardless of whether or not it’s wrong. I support what Ed Brown’s doing now, but I wish he hadn’t gone the “income tax is illegal” route to justify his refusal to pay. Along with all the other conspiracy theories he’s brought up, it really makes him look a bit crazy.

No, the income tax is neither legal as enforced nor lawful. It is not a conspiracy theory. If you think it is, perhaps you can "show Ed Brown the law" which is all that he has asked since the beginning. He is not objecting on moral grounds, he is objecting on legal grounds and has repeatedly stated that he will pay the tax as soon as they show that it is authorized. Unfortunately, the entire injustice department and the irs cannot and neither can you.
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2007, 08:35:58 pm »

  How do we pay for such societal order, but through taxation?  Let's face it...the voluntary utopia of anarchy is about as fallacious as the utopia of communism, so government controlled rules and order is a requirement.

As far as the income tax is concerned, I don't like it.  I believe its foundation and origination is sketchy at best. But to insist that it does not exist, and is not here to stay is given the same reception as a UFO conspiracy theory. 

Here we go again.
Why do you people join a forum that is clearly based on freedoms and libertarian views and then try to convince us we need the things we are trying to get away from.

I see that you just joined and have made four posts so far. Not one introducing yourself by saying "Hello, I'm from....."  but all four trying to convince us we need taxes.
I don't get it? Why not join the Democratic Underground forum? Why join a freedom based forum?
Are you just Trolling?


And as far as the income tax and Ed Brown’s situation, I think he’s right. The income tax is legal, regardless of whether or not it’s wrong. I support what Ed Brown’s doing now, but I wish he hadn’t gone the “income tax is illegal” route to justify his refusal to pay. Along with all the other conspiracy theories he’s brought up, it really makes him look a bit crazy.

No, the income tax is neither legal as enforced nor lawful. It is not a conspiracy theory. If you think it is, perhaps you can "show Ed Brown the law" which is all that he has asked since the beginning. He is not objecting on moral grounds, he is objecting on legal grounds and has repeatedly stated that he will pay the tax as soon as they show that it is authorized. Unfortunately, the entire injustice department and the irs cannot and neither can you.

The tax laws are Title 26 USC, the Internal Revenue Code. I’ve read through some of this trying to find my own loopholes, and besides trying to be creative about definitions of income and being liberal about allowable deductions, I haven’t seen much in the way of trying to use the legal system as a way out of paying taxes. The law isn’t right, it isn’t just, and if we had any semblance of a responsive or accountable legislature in this country, the IRC wouldn’t exist, but it does, and that’s how the government is going to go after people who refuse to hand over their money.

Ultimately what is legal or illegal is “what the government says is so.” We’re supposed to have a government that listens to the people, but what we have instead is a group of people with more guns than you telling you what to do.

(The IRS refusal to expound upon the law doesn’t really say anything about it’s existence, by the way; it’s not really their job to issue legal opinions. They’re the government’s enforcers, not its legislators, lawyers, or jurists.)
Logged

lastlady

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2007, 10:33:34 pm »

  How do we pay for such societal order, but through taxation?  Let's face it...the voluntary utopia of anarchy is about as fallacious as the utopia of communism, so government controlled rules and order is a requirement.

As far as the income tax is concerned, I don't like it.  I believe its foundation and origination is sketchy at best. But to insist that it does not exist, and is not here to stay is given the same reception as a UFO conspiracy theory. 


Here we go again.
Why do you people join a forum that is clearly based on freedoms and libertarian views and then try to convince us we need the things we are trying to get away from.

I see that you just joined and have made four posts so far. Not one introducing yourself by saying "Hello, I'm from....."  but all four trying to convince us we need taxes.
I don't get it? Why not join the Democratic Underground forum? Why join a freedom based forum?
Are you just Trolling?



Thanks John C! I was thinking the same damn thing....
Logged

Freedom-Isnt-Free

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2007, 06:34:22 am »

Hi LastLady.  Nice of you to chime in.

With regard to "show Ed Brown the law".... well that approach is a fallacy as well. As pointed out above, the law is codified in 26 USC, as well as thousands of additional pages in the internal revenue code.  The entire structure of the code is predicated on the payment of taxes. Its a constructive requirement.  I don't know if the magic words, "thou shall pay income tax" are recited or not, but I wil take your premise as true that there is not specific language to that effect. Regardles, it does not make the requirement to pay any less enforceable. 

1) In our Constitution, the judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to interpret the laws of this land.  The law is what the supreme court says it is.  I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with their collective decisions....I despise some of their rulings.  But that is our system.  The supreme court ruled that the income tax is lawful.  I can find the numerous case cites if anyone cares. It still does not make it right.

2) The "show Ed Brown the law" argument fails on another point.  In New Hampshire, we hve an entire volume of the statutes devoted to motor vehicles.  Despite the numerous laws, does even one of them state that you shall move forward on the highways?  No.  It is an implicit understanding without which the statute would achieve absurd results.  Yet using Mr. Brown's argument, I should be able to back down I-89 at 5 miles per hour with inpunity, because the law doesn't say I can't.

3)  Let's assume that Ed Brown's argument has merit..there is no law requiring him to pay federal income tax.  Using that argument, how is Elaine Brown excused from paying STATE taxes?  RSA 77-A and RSA 77-E explicitly require businesses to pay taxes on their income.  The same ambiguity does not exist at the state level, yet the Brown's failed to pay in that arena as well.  So much for well-reasoned, principled adherence to the law.   

I am extremely worried that our legitimate and worthy pursuit of more personal freedom and less government is being hijacked by a very vocal minority.  A minority who is so far out of the mainstream that the media can successfully portray us all as wackos because of the association.

Let the hate mail begin!
Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2007, 09:28:49 am »

No...please argue!  Do your best to convince me that your position is correct.  That is how free people exchange ideas.

In your own argument, however, you've documented the necessity of government... i.e. you'll haul their butts into court if they breach your contract.  Anarchies have no courts.  Let's assume for the moment that courts do exist in an anarchy.  Who will enforce the court's order?  If there are no enforcers, who will bother to abide by a courts order?  The real quandry is the enforcement itself.  Do you resort to "self-help" and take someone else's property pursuant to a court order?  Aren't you then depriving that other person of their property against there will?  perhaps they seek to prevent a "theft" and shoot at you...you'll shoot back.  All that is left is determining which of you is a Hatfield and which is a Macoy.

Let me get back to our common ground. While I believe government is necessary....I also believe it has vastly over-stepped its original role to preserve freedom.  If your premise is to roll back government, then we stand allied.  If your premise is to eradicate government, then you stand alone.

Okay, I'm now in arguement mode.

Your statement about Anarchies have no courts is both misleading and misunderstood. It has not always been the role of government to have courts. In fact there was a time when the courts were actually the families themselves who were involved in a dispute. But I digress to the real point, and that was your statement that we have no courts. We could have courts, if we choose too. You may reconize our form of courts as being what are commonly called Arbatration Courts or Bodies.

In our system of 'justice' we choose who we want to act as a impartial third party to judge any crime that may exist. Let me "briefly" use your example to illistrate one possible court case.

You come on to my property. I ask you to leave. You decline to leave. I draw my firearm and point it at you ordering you to leave to you will force me to drag your corpse off my property. You decide its best to get off my property and I wish you a good day. You decide later that you are upset that I violated your right to free travel, your right to liberty, your right to piss people off, your right not to have a gun pointed at you, and your right to be a total jerk. What do you do without government?

You call up your buddy and ask him to arbitrate between us. He causes me to be noticed that I should appear at a hearing at such and such time and date and that if I have any questions to call him. I call him and interview who he is and find out he is your friend. I agree that the issue should be arbitrated however I do not consent to him being the arbiter due to his conflict of knowing you, and ask him to recuse himself and locate another invidividual to act as arbiter, which he does. You and I go back and forth rejecting arbiter after arbiter till we find no just cause to reject one.

So we goto this court, one we both have agreed apon, you list your claims against me, and I list my counter claims against you. We then go about proving and disproving each others points offering whatever evidence we can manage to come up with. Finally we both conclude our cases and the arbiter renders his verdict and sets a sentencing hearing date.

We both can then appeal the verdict to our hearts content and appeal and appeal and appeal, of course there are costs involved in involving courts, those fees are generally agreed apon prior to services being rendered so you can't appeal forever or you will go broke. All the normal stuff that happens within government courts could be mirrored in this private court system.

Finally we get to the sentencing hearing and the winner of the case suggests what the punishment is and the loser either agrees with the sentence or suggests another more just sentence, since what is fair in the mind of one could be not for another. If the winner is agreed then its is so ordered.

Here is where things are quite a bit different in a private system. You are now under contract to perform the actions that the court has ordered, as have I. If you fail to comply then we start all over with yet more courts, if its so desirable by one party or another. Lets talk about the enforcement of this court order. Lets say you were found guilty and you have to pay the costs of court($1000), the compensation of my time($750), and a fine to convince you to not bother people with frivious litagation($500).

You decide not to pay, I decide not to prosicute you for breach of contract, it makes no sense to take you back to court since you decided not to pay in the first place. I take my little court order to the local merchants and suggest that if your character is such not to make the payment for this contract, that you might also decide that any other future contract with another might also be breached. I also contact the local media and offer them something of news worth regarding the court order.

What is the effect of this? No one chooses to do business with you, your accounts are closed, and payments are demanded to be paid in full immediately. You can't buy food, clothing, shelter, or many other things. You are essentially cut out of the community. Of course your friends might help you out, but if they are found out helping you, they too could risk getting the same treatment. Further you have shown that you are person not to be trusted, which could lead you into a world of trouble if you turn violent. Just as violence is not acceptible now, its more lethal without government because violent people have violence returned apon them.

What other enforcement is required? None. What purpose would locking you away for a crime? None. Do I get my money? No. Would that stop you from doing the same thing over again? No.

Jails really serve no purpose in detering crime. They take a perfectly good resource out of the community and stop them from being productive. They then turn these people into harder criminals because they were convicted. Ever experience what life is like as a convict? You can't vote, you can't get a government job(why would you want to?), you can't protect your family with a firearm, you are no longer a citizen, you are a second class citizen. Your life is more difficult then it was pre-conviction. Is it no wonder that they turn these people into worse criminals. What about the 'skills' you learn in jail, how to do other crimes and such.

I think I've shown what -could- happen. Of course there are many different people, and they all could find different ways of solving our problems with each other peacefully. Perhaps something I haven't thought of. I've also not gone into real good detail about how things could happen because I can't account for every possible situtation.

I will accept your assistance in rolling back government. Of course my end game is to try a governmentless society, and if you don't want to participate in that, you have every right not to. As for being alone, I am not. There are quite a few people who may believe what I believe and are willing to try it without government, finding more freedom without government to be far more enjoiable then even a rolled back government.

The lesson to learn from our government today is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilence, and that government has proven that if you don't watch the watchers, they became your masters. History really does repeat itself, and if you can't see that we are no different today then our fore fathers were some 200, then you like most people are doomed to repeat history.

With peace and love I offer to all of man kind, may your God(s) protect you and keep you safe.
Logged
Live free or die!

Freedom-Isnt-Free

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2007, 10:27:41 am »

Hi Forrest,

Let me address your posting in somewhat reverse order:

I wholeheartedly agree that we are no better off than our ancestors were 200 years ago...in fact, I will take a step further and submit that we are worse off.  The government IS in full control of our lives....we ARE living with a socialist government.  The rise to supreme power by the central government was solidified by two actions: 1) Removing senators from state legislature appointment; and 2) Implementationof the income tax, thereby shifting the responsibilty of funding the federal government from state legislatures to the individual.  The income tax is not about revenue generation....it is about population control and social engineering.  On this, I am sure we agree.

Where we part ways, is the solution.   You recite an intricate and thoughtful solution by way of private "courts" and arbitration.  You state repeatedly through your posting that this "could" work.  I agree it could work, by the probabilty of it working is quite low.  All of the actions of the players in your scenario are based on how YOU would react in that situation.  You are superimposing your value structure on your hypothetical society.  In reality, people whether good or bad, are far more complex and have differing degrees of inherent rational behavior and tolerance for the behavior of others.  That very dynamic was vividly demonstrated in this series of postings through the replies of John C. and Lastlady.

For example, let me take your scenario. I am the property owner who draws my handgun and threatens violence against a trespasser.  The trespasser has his friend notice me of a hearing.  However, I think trespasser is a complete idiot who is unworthy of a response...afterall, I chase him off my property several times a week...!  I, therefore, completely disregard the notice I received.  Complicate the matter by the fact that I own the general store in our community, and trespasser is a US Postal worker. Of course, my community backs me due to friendships, alliances, and economic reality.  It begins to take on the flavor of a tyranny of the majority that our founders worked so diligently to avoid with checks and balances.  But this might work in a small 18th century-like agrarian community.

The probabilty of success of your scenario decreases exponentially once we introduce 21st century reality.  In today's reality, what do you suppose would happen if we sent "notice" of a hearing to the Chinese for poisoning our kids with lead-painted toys?  Remove international relations from the equation...what do you think would happen if we sent "notice" of a hearing to Wal-Mart?

Really, I am not trying to be the antagonist on this site, but never has it been more true that the "devil is in the details" as it is with changing, eliminating, or rolling back governments.  There is only one way to do it...and that is with force, violence, and bloodshed.  And before I participate in risking everything, including my life and the lives of my family, you had best have a well-thought plan for the reconstruction of society.  That is one lesson that has never been learned throughout history and THAT is the history we most risk repeating.
Logged

John C

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Chester Arms LLC
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2007, 06:57:06 pm »

I have nothing to add, except... This is getting Good. ;D
Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2007, 05:06:37 am »

I appreciate your response.

I see what you are saying and I think you lack the full grasp and understanding of what true liberty is. Lets first address your concerns with regards to our little hypothetical. You don't like the guy and so you ignore his summons to court. Liberty is your right, and so you could decide to do so. Just as if you ignored the summons of a court in our current system, the system presses on with out you.

Common law says, 'silence has the appearance of acceptance'. This would mean by your failure to appear and having evidenced that a summons was properly issued the court could enter a plea of no contest and schedule your sentencing hearing. If you failed to appear at that hearing, then the court would then proceed to grant the request of compensation against you. No can force you to do anything you don't want to do, that is the non-aggression principle at work and the basis for this society.

As you well understand, people who are respected in the community are listened to. These 'private court' judges would be as equally respected as you are as a businessman. They would be looked to be honest, trustworthy, and fair. If they are not honest, trustworthy, and fair, then someone else could step forth and offer their adjudication services. The fact that you own the only store in town would not make you exempt from their rulings. In fact bad press and the court ruling against you, may bankrupt you financially. Imagine if the guy you don't like sent his ruling to your suppliers, they may stop supplying you. 1001 different things could come out of this simple situation.

Lets assume for the moment that you are this all powerful businessman for the moment. That no one could even think of competing with you. That you say 'jump' and everyone asks 'how high'. Is this any more different then government as it exists today? The community may support you they may not. I don't know if I would support someone who ignores justice.

However in a totally free market, you couldn't possibly control everything. Without government you are mostly powerless. So long as you address the market's needs, you maintain your market monopoly. If you fail to compete, someone could steal the market from you. Take the example of Microsoft, this 'freer' market giant who because of bad press, bad practices, and good competition has lost quite a bit of its market share, the government interference not withstanding of course.

Actually the technology of the 21st century allows for a great number to newer abilities. A town could adopt a system of identification and quickly access public records to maintain fairness to all. Its not profitable to deal with people who are unjust. You could decide to do a quick public record search with anyone via a PDA/laptop/public info system and decide based on those records who is trustworthy and who is not. Someone new comes to town, we would be more careful how we deal with them. In fact everything about everyone might be public record, or maybe just economic data or something.

First the Chinese wouldn't want to poison us, its not good business to kill your customers. Governments tend to leave people alone unless they are a threat. Lets assume they do poison us. How we deal with governments are different then how we deal with people. Most governments do not represent everyone in their society and generally represent only a small few, mostly those in government itself. So what would we do, first we could order them to stop it and offer to them to enter into talks with us. If they decide, they don't want to. We have our own military force to defend ourselves, of course the first action of a free market military wouldn't be to attack, it would be to negotiate.

A private military force would look to the Chinese as a potential customers and its not good business to offend your customers. They would act on our behalf and find out why they are poisoning us and what it is they want from us. Maybe they want to enter into our economic system because it would be the best system in the world, who wouldn't want to be part of it. Of course if we made it public that they are poisoning us, other governments might actually attack them first. Remember the words of our founding fathers, allies with none, trade with all. So our military may not even be needed.

I'm sorry I use 'could', 'can', and 'might'. Its hard to guess how the free market might organize itself. The same way every person is different, every market could be different and how it chooses to handle things is difficult to say. Its like the body, it acts, reacts, and acts again to an ever changing number of variables. Regardless if we disagree or not you are welcome to join. Understand that not everyone will like what I say and plan, but self-governance isn't a one size fits all thing. We've seen how a one-size fits all system works and I don't like it.

I'd rather choose who I associate. Live around those who are like minded. Agree to disagree with those who won't change. The only one requirement I would place on everyone is this, 'you are free to do what you want to do, so long as you don't harm anyone'. If we harm each other we need to be peaceful about it and resolve it with logic and thinking things through.

If you want limited government, you can do that. There is room for everyone in the FreeState. Racists, bigots, fascists, violence people, there is some place for all of them, in my opinion. Of course how they interact with others will be the details that they will have to work among themselves.

As for risking your life, your family, you are already doing that. By questioning authority, you've already flagged yourself. These boards are open, do you want liberty in your lifetime or is partial slavery moving toward full slavery a better option? 'The Man' watches this board and reads ever message posted. Thats the really great and awesome thing about liberty, choice. Think about the following scene and tell if you think it reflects alot of what we are talking about today.

Quote
I imagine, right now, you must be feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole? I can see it in your eyes.  You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth.  But I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Can you tell me, Neo, why are you here? Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you have the gift.

We are trained in this world to accept only what is rational and logical.  Have you ever wondered why? As children, we do not separate the possible from the impossible which is why the younger a mind is the easier it is to free while a mind like yours can be very difficult. Free from what? From the Matrix. Do you want to know what it is, Neo?

It's that feeling you have had all your life.  That feeling that something was wrong with the world.  You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad, driving you to me.  But what is it? The Matrix is everywhere, it's all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window, or on your television.  You feel it when you go to work, or go to church or pay your taxes.  It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. What truth?

That you are a slave, Neo.  That you, like everyone else, was born into bondage...... kept inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch.  A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is.  You have to see it for yourself. You take the blue pill and the story ends.  You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

The Matrix is Government. The blue pill is liberty. Your mind has been so throughly programmed that government must exist, there is no existence without government. This is fear talking. You have been told what the world would look like without government. Chaos would exist, people would kill each other, tyrants will take over, warlords will fight each other, everyone will be at risk.

You need only look to the Internet to see that you have been lied to. Here information is free, anything can be said, anything can be done and there lays 'chaos' and yet the Internet still exists. The Internet continues to change, like a virus, so too like liberty. It adapts, it evades, it wiggles free. That is what people fear, unpredictability. People fear change.

Why spout these cliche's? Its funny if you think about it. A cliche exists because it is truth. Willingly or unwillingly, it exists. Without governance, without control, without rules, truth exists.

I have soooooo gotten off topic. Sorry, my mind wanders. Its liberty. I have taken the blue pill and my mind is free to think things I've never thought of before. To accept that what will be will be, and that I must take charge of my life and direct it where I want it to go. If it isn't ment to be, then it will not. If however I sit and I do nothing, then I am not being true to myself.

Please do not believe I'm trying to insult anyone, because I am not. I speak my opinion. I could be wrong and you could be right, but we will never know until we try both out. We've tried various types of government, lets try it without. If it fails, it will be easy to institute government again.
Logged
Live free or die!

Freedom-Isnt-Free

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2007, 10:54:33 am »

Oh...where to start....?!?!?!

I concede that I lack the understanding of "true liberty".  But what IS true liberty.  Does anyone, or has anyone, ever fully conprehended true liberty?  I suppose a prehistoric hunter/gather, or a modern day hermit may know, but no man ever has or ever will know true liberty if that person chooses to live in any type of community.  Political philosophers have struggled with this very concept for millenia. 

Without a shred of implied offense to anyone....the collective intellect of this entire forum pales in comparison to those who deliberated and drafted our constitution.  We, as they, seek to "throw off the chains of tyranny", but even the brilliant minds of the period conceded the need for governance.  The term government has been given a negative connotation...and not without cause.  But government is nothing more than the terms by which individuals in a community agree to interact.  Your scenarios provide for communal interaction according to free market principles....that is "government" by definition.  What you seek is not an abolition of government.  Perhaps you do seek that, however, your chosen solution does not provide such a result.

Every human interaction requires rules.  "Common law" is a set of rules. The game of checkers has rules.  Public discourse and etiquette is accommplish by rule, sometimes referred to as "common courtesy".  Our founders debated the articles of confederation and later the constitution under Roberts rules of order. God Almighty has prescribed 10 significant rules that prevent True Liberty...!! Rules are government.  Your privatization scenario is no less a government, albeit a government more responsive to the governed than what we have now.  So, isn't that the true result we seek? A government more responsive to the individual and not to government itself?

An analysis of your last posting demonstrates the universal lack of understanding of true liberty.  You state, "[a] town could adopt a system of identification and quickly access public records..."  What is a "town" in a truly liberated society?  The concept of a "town" is purely a political and governmental construct!  And what about "public records"?!?  Merriam-Webster defines public record as "a record required by law to be made and kept: a : a record made by a public officer or a government agency in the course of the performance of a duty b : a record filed in a public office."  So, who decides what is and is not a public record?  Perhaps you have records deemed to be public, but you don't want to reveal them.  Then what?

My only point here is that you seek a concept of liberty that is known only to God, and heathen hermits.  The best hope we mortals have is to live in a state (not the geopolitical subdivision) of as near perfect freedom as we can without impinging on the freedoms of our neighbors.  As often quoted but incorrectly credited, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."  (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.)  THAT my friend is as close to True Liberty as we will ever come.
Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2007, 07:35:43 pm »

I don't know what true liberty is either, I do know what its not. I know that bowing down to someone who has been granted the same rights by the same creator and therefor is equal to you in every way, through the threat of force is slavery and is immoral.

I appoligize for using terms that are not well thought out and understood. By a town I simply ment a collection of human beings who associate together for mutual defense and economic reasons.

Let me tell you what I think Law is and what common law is. Law is truth in action. Law is considering that which has come before and using that as a guide to make decisions over what comes up now and in the future. Law should never be so rigid as to not allow for some sitituation that could not be thought of in advance. Common law is basically this and as it should apply to all people.

The problem is this concept of liberty. If liberty is freedom and freedom is liberty, and if I have liberty I also have freedom to do and say whatever it is I want to. Everything is great until my freedom butts heads with someone else's freedom. We should talk to each other and come to some terms that are agreeble with each other. If we can't come to some kind of agreement, then we could look to a third party to decide how we deal with the situtation.

It would appear you believe that we need to have iron clad and rigid rules that define how it is we should interact and behave without any regard that there are 6 billion people on this planet with different ideas and concepts on how things should be done. You can not possibly think of every one of those interactions and write a rule how things should be done so your rules are flawed from the outcome. Doublely so when two people both decide they don't want to use your rules.

Who should determine who gets to make the rules? It would appear that you advocate that other human beings who are flawed and not perfect should be the sole maker of rules, and that another set of flawed and unperfect human beings should decide what the rules say.

The point of our current form of government was to create three branches of government. One to make the laws, one to enforce the laws, and one to interprate the laws. The rules created were to provide a check and balance so that not one of the branches could become more powerful then the other. The concept had never been tested and it was well thought out, it failed however to reconize the same thing you appear to fail to reconize. Human beings are flawed and imperfect.

It failed to consider that where the rules say A is A, B is B, and C is C, that the three branches could all come to the same conclusion that ABC is ABC and work with each other to have what each other wanted. The rule makers can make any rule they want to. The rule enforcer can enforce the rule anyway it wants to. The rule interprater can interprate the rule anyway it wants to. All of which violates the rules that were outlined.

You too fail to realize you can't control anyone. You can ask someone to do something. You can convince them its the right thing to do. In the end you can't control anyone. What is it they say, to continue to do the same thing over and over again expect a different outcome is insane?

Different types of Socialism have been tried all over the world and failed every single time. Different types of Democracies have been tried and tried again and failed every single time. Different types of Monacharies have been tried again and again and all have failed. Perhaps its insane to keep trying to force people into the same mold. Perhaps its time to realize that Goverment has been tried over and over again and has never lasted very long, and to continue to keep trying government is insane?

If you want stop striving for True Liberty because its too hard or difficult, please feel free to do so, I however believe that True Liberty can exist between mortals and I will continue to try to free the minds of my brothers and sisters of Man by using logic and reason.

I've been at this True Liberty concept and it requires a lot of education on things that aren't taught in schools, higher institutes of learning, or anywhere else. The reason for this is because these works go against the commonly held belief system that currently exists. Sit down and read works like 'Ethics of Liberty' and 'Complete Liberty', they are free to download and are available in audio format for traveling purposes. I continue to read everday covering the ground that alot of people who have been working toward liberty far longer then I have and perhaps know more about it then I do but choose not to talk about things as I have.

Just today I found this too, it was emailed to my box jsut yesterday and kind of reflects the idea and concepts I speak about.
Privatizing the Adjudication of Disputes by BRYAN CAPLAN and EDWARD P. STRINGHAM. http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham3.pdf

I only recommend those writings that I have personally read and only recommend them when I think they are really good. Alot are really dry, unless you want liberty.
Logged
Live free or die!

Freedom-Isnt-Free

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2007, 09:10:57 am »

I understand what you are saying Forrest.  I think we've come to the point where we are actually arguing the same thing.  I don't think our "differences" are differences at all.  I will write more in a bit.  I'm too busy for a lengthy response right now.
Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2007, 10:03:55 am »

I understand what you are saying Forrest.  I think we've come to the point where we are actually arguing the same thing.  I don't think our "differences" are differences at all.  I will write more in a bit.  I'm too busy for a lengthy response right now.

Been there, done that. Lets move to our own personal thread. PM me the new thread.
Logged
Live free or die!

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2007, 05:55:05 pm »


With regard to "show Ed Brown the law".... well that approach is a fallacy as well. As pointed out above, the law is codified in 26 USC, as well as thousands of additional pages in the internal revenue code. 

Something is codified there, but nothing that requires me to file or pay income tax

The entire structure of the code is predicated on the payment of taxes. Its a constructive requirement. 

Every unconstitutional edict or legal misinterpretation is predicated on something, who cares?

I don't know if the magic words, "thou shall pay income tax" are recited or not, but I wil take your premise as true that there is not specific language to that effect. Regardles, it does not make the requirement to pay any less enforceable. 

So we are legally required to do things that that there is not stated by any specific language.? Is there anything else that doesn't have "specific language to that effect" that I need to be doing?

1) In our Constitution, the judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to interpret the laws of this land.  The law is what the supreme court says it is.  I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with their collective decisions....I despise some of their rulings.  But that is our system.  The supreme court ruled that the income tax is lawful.  I can find the numerous case cites if anyone cares. It still does not make it right.

I doubt it but I know that I can forward reams of legal research showing the contrary.

2) The "show Ed Brown the law" argument fails on another point.  In New Hampshire, we hve an entire volume of the statutes devoted to motor vehicles.  Despite the numerous laws, does even one of them state that you shall move forward on the highways?  No.  It is an implicit understanding without which the statute would achieve absurd results.  Yet using Mr. Brown's argument, I should be able to back down I-89 at 5 miles per hour with inpunity, because the law doesn't say I can't.

Speaking of absurd, how did you come up with this analysis? There are statutory minimum speed requirements in addition to reasonable and prudent, reckless endagerment and plenty of others.

3)  Let's assume that Ed Brown's argument has merit..there is no law requiring him to pay federal income tax.  Using that argument, how is Elaine Brown excused from paying STATE taxes?  RSA 77-A and RSA 77-E explicitly require businesses to pay taxes on their income.  The same ambiguity does not exist at the state level, yet the Brown's failed to pay in that arena as well.  So much for well-reasoned, principled adherence to the law.

In most states the state income tax is a percentage of federal. Any percentage of nothing is nothing.
 
I am extremely worried that our legitimate and worthy pursuit of more personal freedom and less government is being hijacked by a very vocal minority.  A minority who is so far out of the mainstream that the media can successfully portray us all as wackos because of the association.

Ending fraud and injustice on a national level is not a legitiamte or worthy pursuit? I'm sorry, it sounds like you were counting on the mainstream media to fairly portray the freedom movement.... ROFL, ROFL, ROFL
 
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2007, 09:02:37 am »

In my own defense I wanted a new thread.

I just wanted to point out something I found in RSA77-A:1, whereas section III says:
""Gross business profits'' means:
       (a) In the case of a corporation, except ""S'' corporations, or any other business organization required to make and file a United States corporation income tax return, or in the case of a corporation which does not make and file a separate United States corporation income tax return for itself because it is a member of an affiliated group pursuant to the provisions of chapter 6 of the United States Internal Revenue Code as defined in RSA 77-A:1, XX, the amount of taxable income as would be determinable under the provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code as defined in RSA 77-A:1, XX before the application of any net operating loss deduction, special deductions shown on line 29 of the federal corporate income tax return, or any other special deductions allowable only to a certain class of corporate taxpayer.
       (b) In the case of ""S'' corporations or any other business organizations required to make and file an ""S'' corporation return, the net profit from all business activity determined in accordance with rules adopted by the department of revenue administration under RSA 541-A.
       (c) In the case of a partnership or any other business organization required to make and file a United States partnership return of income, the amount of ordinary income as would be determinable under the provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code as defined in RSA 77-A:1, XX increased by the amounts shown as payments to partners on the federal partnership return of income, the net amount of any gains from the sale of partnership assets, items of income specifically allocated to partners and decreased by any deductions specifically allocated to partners or losses on the sale of partnership assets.
[the remainder of the section omitted due to repeativiness]


It would appear to me, that only certain businesses are obligated to pay state taxes only when the IRC requires them to pay federal taxes. All evidence I've read and heard of would point to that no one is obligated to do so, regardless to what government believes the tax rules say.

A person who understands liberty would understand that taking things without permission is stealing. Government was not now, nor ever granted by any LAW(as apposed to statute, rule, or by-law) the power to take anything without permission.

Lets take this one step further and argue these points. All human beings are created equal. All human beings are equal to each other. All human beings are granted the right by their creator to life and liberty. Governments exist only to serve the governed and only in so much as the governed agree to give them the authority over them. When government becomes distructive to the ends to which it was created, its the right and obligation of human beings to reform, replace, or remove that government.

If these are all true, which I hold them to be true, then how is the obligation created apon me to follow the rules set by those who are equal to me, who hold no contract bearing my signature or an other evidence that I agreed to the contract, and that when they violate the authority vested in them, assuming I consented to agreement, why should I be obligated to continue to follow the agreement when in bad faith they violate the agreement.

If I am hired by an employer and the rules, regulations, and expectations of both myself and the employer are known to both parties, and when such time arises that my employer decides to exceed the agreed apon rules, then is not the agreement terminated by their violating the agreement? Do they have the ability to order armed thugs to violate my life, liberty, and property without due process?

Anyone who even believes for one moment that justice can be served by any court who's officers all share the same employer, is insane. The judges, the lawyers, the enforcers, they are all paid for, authorized by, and execute the orders given by the same body. There is no way you will get a fair trial if in doing so would go against their employer's ends. Why anyone would ever step into a local, state, or federal court house and expect anything other then what is desired by the people in charge, is beyond me.
Logged
Live free or die!

Freedom-Isnt-Free

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Ed & Elaine Brown's Fall Freedom Festival September 15, 2007
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2007, 11:55:21 am »

Hello all, I took a short hiatus. 

Keyser...I don't want to be mean, so I'll just thank you for making an effort to respond.

Forrest:  With regard to RSA 77-A, you are an intelligent man and you know you cannot analyze one small component of a statute; it must be read in its entirety.  The use and reference to the IRC in the state statute is not flawed.  It is a system of incorporation by reference to eliminate redundancy.  It is no different than if the exact language referenced in the IRC were rewritten in the state statute.  If it had been rewritten in the state statute, we would not be debating its applicability to Elaine Brown's dental business.  We would most likely be debating its applicability in the theoretical sense, but not within the context of "show Ed Brown the law."

With regard to the paraphrased recitation of John Locke's political theories, I don't disagree.....in the theoretical sense.  But to take that hard-line theory to the conclusion you seem to desire would leave no room for even the model of government envisioned and created by our founders.  Not even Jefferson endevoured to create such a utpoia. 

I suppose this is the distinction between you and me.  You believe in no government.  Period.  You believe in the condition of perfect freedom to order your life as you see fit by taking leave of no other man.  I, on the other hand, believe in the brilliance of our founders, for I am a strict Constitutionalist.  Do I believe that we live in a country that is in strict adherence to the Constitution?  Hell no!  But that also doesn't mean I subscribe to abolishing all government and replacing it with a private sector government.  Private or public...without the correct checks and balances...they'll both become corrupt.

Back to the Brown's for a moment.  I'm beginning to see that a good portion of the membership of this forum believe that the Federal Income Tax is illegal and wrong....just like the Brown's.  My belief is that it is legal, but wrong.  Keyser....do you NOT pay taxes?  Anyone else here NOT pay taxes?

There are those who truly believe in a cause strong enough to live their lives according to their beliefs.  Then there are those who want to be believers, but haven't conviction or resolve.  When I joined this forum I held the Brown's in contempt.  I've changed my opinion.  THEY are the ones to be respected.  They act on their beliefs.  Their actions do not belie their words.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up