ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

[Decyferon]

ARGH!!!!!! haha

 

I am not defending the government, I am agreeing with a proposal of theirs (healthcare), not them as an entire entity, there is a massive difference. Do I believe they should be snooping emails - no, do i agree with the wars - no, do I agree with them bailing out the banks - no (but I can see why it was done) I said I didn't think they should just pull all the troops out in once swoop because it would create a power vacuum in that part of the world.

 

There is a difference between understanding why they are doing something and actually agreeing with it.

 

I agree with taxation, not as it stands at the moment in America because I dont see the benefits to the American people, you have no healthcare, you do get a raw deal.

 

My viewpoint with guns is not political at all, it is just my personal view on guns.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So since we don't get health care we get the raw deal.

 

That is FAR from the reason why the American public has the short end of the stick.

[Decyferon]

no that isnt the only issue but it is an important one. You don't comment on the other things, the war, the invasion of privacy etc etc, just the healthcare, while it may be fine for you to pay for it if you like, many many people can't and that is seriously fucked up in one of the most so called most advanced countries in the world.

[angelofdeath]

one thing you never want to talk about is having to take the money from someone else at gun point. that is all wealth redistribution is. why dont you try going next door to your neighbor and asking him for money for _________ and see how well it goes over. make sure to take a gun with you incase he doesnt submit, since you have a right to his property so you can take it by force. if he gives it to you voluntarily, its fine. if you have to steal it from him using force, it is a violation of rights.

a majority vote in a legislature doesnt negate this fact. theft is theft, no matter what the intended purpose of the theft is. its no different than holding someone up on the street with a weapon, taking their jacket, and giving it to someone else who may or may not need the jacket.

[Decyferon]

Because no one is taking money at gunpoint, you have this bizarre view that taxes that contribute to society in general is this awful thing. Again it comesdown to this ridiculous notion that the be all and end all is a document written so long ago which plays no part in how a modern society is ran.

 

Guess what I don't need to knock on my neighbours door, you know why? He already contributes to society, it is how his kids were born healthy in a good hospital and get to go to school.

 

This is the thing that annoys me you talk about freedoms and liberty and all that yet you have such selfish views, you don't contribute anything to your society, you don't have any interest in making peoples lives easier, the government isn't allowed to make peoples lives easier, if someone is born poor then they can just grin and bear it and fuck em.

 

while individual rights is one issue, the constant belief in individualism is just frustratingly selfish. Saying you don't want to contribute what is frankly a tiny percentage of taxes to help people is like a child throwing his toys out of a pram, where is the big issue here??

[Zig]

Because no one is taking money at gunpoint, you have this bizarre view that taxes that contribute to society in general is this awful thing. Again it comesdown to this ridiculous notion that the be all and end all is a document written so long ago which plays no part in how a modern society is ran.

 

Guess what I don't need to knock on my neighbours door, you know why? He already contributes to society, it is how his kids were born healthy in a good hospital and get to go to school.

 

This is the thing that annoys me you talk about freedoms and liberty and all that yet you have such selfish views, you don't contribute anything to your society, you don't have any interest in making peoples lives easier, the government isn't allowed to make peoples lives easier, if someone is born poor then they can just grin and bear it and fuck em.

 

while individual rights is one issue, the constant belief in individualism is just frustratingly selfish. Saying you don't want to contribute what is frankly a tiny percentage of taxes to help people is like a child throwing his toys out of a pram, where is the big issue here??

 

Well, you are also under the assumption once again that all of your tax money is going towards honorable causes. Let me remind you that we didn't have an income tax when this nation was initially growing, and we got along just fine without one, even when it came to the issues you are concerning yourself with such as health, education, infrastructure, etc. It can even be debated that our education and intelligence level prior to federally funded public schooling was at a higher standard than it is today. Many people don't want to pay taxes, especially such invasive ones as the income tax, due to the fact that their money is not being used in the manner of which they would want it to be. Mostly it is supporting the large institutions that hold our society together, and to some keep our society controlled. Here is a graph for you to get an idea of just exactly how your tax money is being put to use:

 

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs16/f/2007/124/3/4/Death_and_Taxes__2008_by_mibi.jpg

[angelofdeath]

its not a matter of the constitution at all. taxes are legal.

im talking about rights.

 

sure they are taking money at gun point. if you do not pay taxes, you already have stated that you support the government claiming the right to kill you if you do not pay them. what will they do if you do not pay taxes? you will go to jail. if you resist enough, they claim the right to kill you for resistance.

 

you are confusing theft and voluntary interaction. there is nothing saying that people cannot voluntary contribute to childrens programs, church programs, the salvation army, good will, red cross, and whatever other charities there are. you seem pretty good hearted. im sure in a tax free world you would contribute to what you want to. there is no need to steal someones money to give it to someone else.

 

americans as a general rule pay almost 50% of their incomes in some form of taxes. european countries pay more. it is not some 'small percent of income.'

 

you dont have a right to anyone elses property. plain and simple.

its like saying...'well, that slave... he has to work, because he has to contribute to society. crack that whip!' why do you not support chattel slavery but you support someone else paying for everything for you?

 

its funny to me that people actually claim other peoples property as their own. its no different than someone claiming that they own your house, your wife, your car or whatever.

 

so if your neighbor didnt pay for your hospital and schooling you would go and rob him or you would elect a government that would send armed enforcement agents to his house to seize his income because he has to 'pay' his taxes for YOUR benefit? and you want to talk about 'selfish.' just because i dont favor someone stealing my money under penalty of law doesnt mean that i dont favor helping people out through voluntary donations or charity.

 

everything in the market is voluntary. everything the government does is coercive. if you do not comply, you get thrown in a brig. if you dont shop at walmart, you just dont shop at walmart. if you dont shop at the government's program menu, you go to jail. if you resist that you are shot for resisting the state.

 

i'll take my voluntary charity any day over government charity. i do not favor theft, so i cannot support people that claim the right to rob people to confiscate property from them to give to someone else

[Decyferon]

its the same line AOD that you give.

 

You keep twisting the facts, I stated that tax evasion is a crime, you generally get fined, if you don't pay the fine, which is not adhering to the punishment given by a legal justice system then you go to jail. You are the one talki0gn about killing, I never did, i responded to a specific scenariothat you laid out, I said if someone resists arrest with a deadly weapon then the police have the right to use deadly force, but you are twisting my words again!!!

 

You talk about charity, well I am sorry but people are selfish dicks in general and don't help others, so if your tax contributions go towards helping people then that is a great thing, the doctors get paid, people get welfare, society in general benefits.

 

I never talk about armed people coming round and knocking doors down, you are the only one that states these things. It is like a paranoid delusion or something, you say I will go and rob a neighbour, that is ludicrous, if they are evading their taxes they are commiting a crime, it has nothign to do with me, it is their decision to break the law, just as it is mine if I want to paint on a wall or smoke weed. It is their choice to break the law, they get to live with the consequence.

 

If the world just tried to survive on charity then modern society and the countries we live in would crumble, the infastructure we have everythign would go to shit, you know why because everyone looks out for number one.

[Decyferon]

Well, you are also under the assumption once again that all of your tax money is going towards honorable causes. Let me remind you that we didn't have an income tax when this nation was initially growing, and we got along just fine without one, even when it came to the issues you are concerning yourself with such as health, education, infrastructure, etc. It can even be debated that our education and intelligence level prior to federally funded public schooling was at a higher standard than it is today. Many people don't want to pay taxes, especially such invasive ones as the income tax, due to the fact that their money is not being used in the manner of which they would want it to be. Mostly it is supporting the large institutions that hold our society together, and to some keep our society controlled. Here is a graph for you to get an idea of just exactly how your tax money is being put to use:

 

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs16/f/2007/124/3/4/Death_and_Taxes__2008_by_mibi.jpg

 

nope, I have stated before that my taxes go towards things I don't agree with, I don't agree with the military or the wars they are fighting but I look at the bigger picture. Yea you didn't have an income tax when you country was growing, guess what society and civilisation has moved on significantly since the 18th century.

 

but to you guys it is some totalitarian communist collective conspiracy, you keep throwing up examples of how the world was in the 18th century, we DONT live in the 18th century. Get with the times.

[shai]

When did I say that? You rob a store you go to jail. Some crimes aren't serious enough to warrant jailtime others are, lesser crimes, you get fines. I have been fined for a crime, I have been given cautions, the crimes weren't serious to warrant jail, I broke the law I live with it.

 

so in the end... you admit that you favor throwing people in jail for libel or tax evasion. and if they resist being arrested... do you favor police officers shooting them if the resist enough?

 

Nope again putting words in my mouth, deadly force should only be used when being threatened with deadly force. If a criminal is waving a gun around and refuses arrest and is threatening people with the gun then I see no reason why they shouldn't be shot.

 

ok.

so i'll elaborate.

you file a law suit against me for slander or libel.

i refuse to pay the fine i am sentenced.

the police come to get me. to arrest me. i defend myself when they try to take me to jail.

the police shoot me.

did i get what i deserve?

 

If when they came to arrest you and you start threatening them with a gun and there is no way for them to disarm you and arrest you then yes they can shoot you. You are resisting arrest with a deadly weapon and are threatening to shoot them.

 

In a court of law it was determined you commited libel and were ordered to pay a fine, you chose not to appeal the decision and also to not pay the fine.

 

Do I think it is good that you ended up dead then no i don't but it was your choice to resist arrest and threaten people with a deadly weapon.

 

so in the end, you are for jailing people and/or death for libel and tax evasion.

 

you lied to me and said that you do not want anyone to go to jail or be killed for libel or tax evasion.

 

this is what it always means to support laws like you do.

you are essentially claiming the right to kill people for nonconformity

 

No I said I support fines, if you choose to disregard the punishment you were given that is different, you were made under the law to pay a fine you chose not to abide by the legal decision.

 

You then resisted arrest with a deadly weapon.

 

and you just say...'oh well, should of paid your taxes.'

 

if a law is passed that says...'everyone must give up their wife so a government agent can have sex with her once a year' and if you resist this when the agents come and they shoot you, will you just shrug your shoulders and say...' oh well, i resisted with a deadly weapon. i deserved it.'

 

its no different than taxes. rape is an invasion of property rights. taxes are theft, invasion of property rights. it is an injustice. if you resist arrest for either case, you will be shot.

 

Dude where in the hell would you come up with a law like that. It would be rape it would also be an infringement of the wife's human rights, a law like that would be impossible. Taxes are not an o fringement of your human rights.

 

sure it is.

if i dont pay my taxes you just said it is ok for me to go to jail and if i resist that enough, i get shot.

 

This is easily one of the most retarded arguments I've ever read on 12 oz.

 

Libel is a CIVIL matter, not criminal. You don't get arrested for not paying damages. You might have to deal with a lien, but the cops are not going to show up at your house and arrest you. Besides, in a worst case scenario where they DID show up at your door to take you into custody and your response was to wave a gun around, that's on you escalating the situation.

 

AOD, I'm beginning to see a pattern where ANY TOPIC in Crossfire winds up with you using the triumvirate of the Constitution, the free market, and big government/taxes as a steamroller. It's damn near impossible to participate in a conversation with you once the discussion is on your home turf, because nine times out of ten it winds up with you hectoring someone about how they hate freedom/are wrong/secretly want to get boofed by the feds.

 

It's basically the same way DAO would troll threads and it's fucking annoying...even if I agreed with you completely, I wouldn't want to read seventeen paragraphs of you holding forth.

[angelofdeath]

i

 

I never talk about armed people coming round and knocking doors down, you are the only one that states these things. It is like a paranoid delusion or something, you say I will go and rob a neighbour, that is ludicrous, if they are evading their taxes they are commiting a crime, it has nothign to do with me, it is their decision to break the law, just as it is mine if I want to paint on a wall or smoke weed. It is their choice to break the law, they get to live with the consequence.

 

i dont know what world you live in man. seriously.

 

iIF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR TAXES YOU GO TO JAIL. IF YOU FORCIBILY RESIST GOING TO JAIL (IF YOUR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF) YOU WILL BE SHOT FOR RESISTING ARREST!

 

i guess you just cant understand the basis of what taxation is. the theft part.

 

the summation of taxation is....

 

a group of people got together. they formed a government. they elected people to office. they passed laws saying you have to pay a certain amount of money on certain things like income, fuel, etc. if you dont you will go to jail. just because you got together to elect someone to send a tax collector to someones door, doesnt negate the theft part. you are claiming a property right in someone elses property. this is a conflict. it is illegitimate.

 

if you dont pay taxes you go to jail. if you dont give to a charity, you just dont. no consequence. no fine. no jail. no nothing.

that is the difference.

 

apparently you do not know the difference between coercion and voluntarism. or freedom and slavery.

 

do you also believe that slaves actually benefitted from their bondage, that it is ok to own other people and force them to do things? what about if its for the good of others? do you support that? this is the same as forcing someone to pay a tax under penalty of law to force someone to fund your schools, your unemployment, or your healthcare.

 

you dont understand rights.

 

you just want to say that people who defend rights are 'selfish' and that theft is justified because there are poor people in the world.

[Decyferon]

no you do not understand the law of the country, if you evade your taxes you are commiting a crime, you are the criminal no one else, i do know the difference between slavery and freedom, neither has anything to do with taxes, only in your opinion do taxes have anything to do with slavery.

 

People get elected by a majority, the majority of people that voted them into power, if you don't agree with the majority of the people and it bothers you so much, you can just move.

[Decyferon]

This is easily one of the most retarded arguments I've ever read on 12 oz.

 

Libel is a CIVIL matter, not criminal. You don't get arrested for not paying damages. You might have to deal with a lien, but the cops are not going to show up at your house and arrest you. Besides, in a worst case scenario where they DID show up at your door to take you into custody and your response was to wave a gun around, that's on you escalating the situation.

 

AOD, I'm beginning to see a pattern where ANY TOPIC in Crossfire winds up with you using the triumvirate of the Constitution, the free market, and big government/taxes as a steamroller. It's damn near impossible to participate in a conversation with you once the discussion is on your home turf, because nine times out of ten it winds up with you hectoring someone about how they hate freedom/are wrong/secretly want to get boofed by the feds.

 

It's basically the same way DAO would troll threads and it's fucking annoying...even if I agreed with you completely, I wouldn't want to read seventeen paragraphs of you holding forth.

 

I know I am giving up on crossfire because of these very same issues.

[Soup]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2009-05-21-obama-credit-card-reform-law_N.htm

Obama signs into law credit card reform

 

ohhhhhhh snap. Who's still hating on Obama?

[Zig]

but to you guys it is some totalitarian communist collective conspiracy, you keep throwing up examples of how the world was in the 18th century, we DONT live in the 18th century. Get with the times.

 

It isn't a totalitarian communist collective conspiracy, it is the natural trend of government as it increases in size and power, this is something that is historically proven and accurate. The reason I refer back to the 18th century is because the formers of this nation were well aware of these concepts and understood that this is the nature of government; to grow, to corrupt, and to obtain more power. You are saying "Get with the times." as if we should accept Tyranny? If those before me understood the dangers, and I can study and educate myself of these dangers and see from my own perspective that we have and are continuing to gravitate towards the very things we were warned about, why wouldn't I want to express that in my own thoughts and articulations by referring back to the very people who warned us in the first place?

[christo-f]

I know I am giving up on crossfire because of these very same issues.

 

Yep, I have been feeling the same way.

[angelofdeath]

no you do not understand the law of the country, if you evade your taxes you are commiting a crime, you are the criminal no one else, i do know the difference between slavery and freedom, neither has anything to do with taxes, only in your opinion do taxes have anything to do with slavery.

 

who is the victim of this crime?

i am solely concerned with rights, not what someone thinks i can and cannot do.

the question is:

when is force justified?

in defense of rights and that is it. do you disagree?

i'll answer for you.

you disagree with this. you believe force is totally justified in taking property from people if the government does it. you favor forcing them to pay into various socialist schemes.

 

the basis of my argument answers this question...'when should we lock someone up, fine them, force restitution or execute someone?'

i believe only people who commit crimes that involve victims, mala in se crimes (evil in themselves), should be punished. that is... if they violate someones rights, ie. murder, rape, theft, damage to property, etc. i do not believe people who engage in mala prohibita (wrongs prohibited)like smoking dope, owning guns, not paying taxes, the libeler, the prostitute, the married gay couple, etc. should go to jail, be fined or executed for their 'crimes.'

 

not paying money to someone (in this case the government) is not a violation of anyones rights therefore it is not a 'crime' to be punished by law. by simply keeping your own property, you are not violating rights. to think otherwise means that you or someone else has a claim on SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY. which is illegitimate. you dont have a claim on anyones property.

 

to mock the fact that people are killed for victimless crimes like tax evasion, gun ownership, etc is to not face reality.

I realize you are in the UK but there was a well known incident in the early 1990's in the US. it happened on the first president bush's watch. a man in idaho was confronted by an undercover ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms)agent. the ATF agent said that he would give him X amount of dollars for various shotguns that were under the legal limit. being hard up for money, he sawed off the stock of a shotgun and sold it to the undercover agent. soon after the ATF agent came back and told him that he would be charged with federal firearms violations if he didnt infiltrate the aryan nations compound and become an informant for the federal government. the man refused. he was charged with a federal firearms violation and evasion of class III taxes on the firearm. (a shot gun has to be a certain length, otherwise it falls under NFA class III license laws. if you violate this, you are essentially guilty of evasion of the 200$ tax stamp)

he was sent papers to show up in court. he didnt show up. take note that the mere fact that he owned a shot gun and sold it that was an inch under what the government said was 'legal' violated NO ONES RIGHTS at all.

 

months go by. soon enough the feds are staking out the guys property, setting up surveillance, etc. one day the guys son is out with his dog and another friend. the dog runs up on 2 agents trespassing on his property. the agents shoot the dog. the boy panics when he hears a gun shot and his dog is dead and he shoots in the air. the agents, armed with full auto mp5's shoot the boy up the back. dead. the man who sawed off the shotguns, retrieved his dead son. he holed up in his house as the feds set up a stand off to bring the guy in for violating no ones rights only violating the length of gun the government thought was right.

 

a few days later, FBI precision marksman, lon horiuchi, shot the guys wife, WHILE HOLDING A BABY. killed her dead. she was not holding a gun. she was not aiming a gun. she was holding a baby. the man was eventually shot. he eventually surrendered. all the while the government claimed the right to kill all of these people simply because the man violated no ones rights at all, but broke a 'mala prohibita' law that had no victim at all.

 

the man eventually won a few million dollars in a law suit. but this didnt bring back his dead family. no one really cared about all of this. it didnt help his case that he was a white separatist of some sort.

 

i mention this story just to illustrate what happens to the non conformist.

 

the issue isnt about whether healthcare is a good idea, or if taxes are a good idea, its that you are FORCED, just like slavery, to engage in the activity. i favor freedom, not slavery. it makes little sense to talk about the the technicalities of the issues, if you dont have a basic understanding of rights. i fully understand your position, i reject it flat out and support the position that people who have not violated anyones rights should be able to live their lives how they want to and not be subject criminal or civil prosecution.

[Mainframe]

^*golf clap*

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intellectual+masturbation

[Decyferon]

who is the victim of this crime?

i am solely concerned with rights, not what someone thinks i can and cannot do.

the question is:

when is force justified?

in defense of rights and that is it. do you disagree?

i'll answer for you.

you disagree with this. you believe force is totally justified in taking property from people if the government does it. you favor forcing them to pay into various socialist schemes.

 

the basis of my argument answers this question...'when should we lock someone up, fine them, force restitution or execute someone?'

i believe only people who commit crimes that involve victims, mala in se crimes (evil in themselves), should be punished. that is... if they violate someones rights, ie. murder, rape, theft, damage to property, etc. i do not believe people who engage in mala prohibita (wrongs prohibited)like smoking dope, owning guns, not paying taxes, the libeler, the prostitute, the married gay couple, etc. should go to jail, be fined or executed for their 'crimes.'

 

not paying money to someone (in this case the government) is not a violation of anyones rights therefore it is not a 'crime' to be punished by law. by simply keeping your own property, you are not violating rights. to think otherwise means that you or someone else has a claim on SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY. which is illegitimate. you dont have a claim on anyones property.

 

to mock the fact that people are killed for victimless crimes like tax evasion, gun ownership, etc is to not face reality.

I realize you are in the UK but there was a well known incident in the early 1990's in the US. it happened on the first president bush's watch. a man in idaho was confronted by an undercover ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms)agent. the ATF agent said that he would give him X amount of dollars for various shotguns that were under the legal limit. being hard up for money, he sawed off the stock of a shotgun and sold it to the undercover agent. soon after the ATF agent came back and told him that he would be charged with federal firearms violations if he didnt infiltrate the aryan nations compound and become an informant for the federal government. the man refused. he was charged with a federal firearms violation and evasion of class III taxes on the firearm. (a shot gun has to be a certain length, otherwise it falls under NFA class III license laws. if you violate this, you are essentially guilty of evasion of the 200$ tax stamp)

he was sent papers to show up in court. he didnt show up. take note that the mere fact that he owned a shot gun and sold it that was an inch under what the government said was 'legal' violated NO ONES RIGHTS at all.

 

months go by. soon enough the feds are staking out the guys property, setting up surveillance, etc. one day the guys son is out with his dog and another friend. the dog runs up on 2 agents trespassing on his property. the agents shoot the dog. the boy panics when he hears a gun shot and his dog is dead and he shoots in the air. the agents, armed with full auto mp5's shoot the boy up the back. dead. the man who sawed off the shotguns, retrieved his dead son. he holed up in his house as the feds set up a stand off to bring the guy in for violating no ones rights only violating the length of gun the government thought was right.

 

a few days later, FBI precision marksman, lon horiuchi, shot the guys wife, WHILE HOLDING A BABY. killed her dead. she was not holding a gun. she was not aiming a gun. she was holding a baby. the man was eventually shot. he eventually surrendered. all the while the government claimed the right to kill all of these people simply because the man violated no ones rights at all, but broke a 'mala prohibita' law that had no victim at all.

 

the man eventually won a few million dollars in a law suit. but this didnt bring back his dead family. no one really cared about all of this. it didnt help his case that he was a white separatist of some sort.

 

i mention this story just to illustrate what happens to the non conformist.

 

the issue isnt about whether healthcare is a good idea, or if taxes are a good idea, its that you are FORCED, just like slavery, to engage in the activity. i favor freedom, not slavery. it makes little sense to talk about the the technicalities of the issues, if you dont have a basic understanding of rights. i fully understand your position, i reject it flat out and support the position that people who have not violated anyones rights should be able to live their lives how they want to and not be subject criminal or civil prosecution.

 

If you are so concerned with people rights and the violation of people and taking of peoples property, why haven't you given your land over to the native americans who had their rights violated and their land stolen. Yur country was built on the very foundation of what you are against. The people that wrote the constitution owned slaves had land stolen from people who's natural rights were violated. It is a country built on complete hipocrasy and ignoring of basic facts. I understand why people in America would not want to pay taxes to the king of england, I wouldnt pay germanys taxes. But I would pay taxes to MY country.

 

The crime is tax evasion, last time I checked that was a crime, I don't condone locking someone up for it, but I do say fine them, if everyone else is paying taxes what makes them so special that they don't have to? If they don't pay the fine then that is seperate from the original tax evasion crime, they are refusing to pay the legally allocated fine as given by the law courts of the land. I ony said police are able to use dealy force when they are confronted with deadly force. I mean really if you don't want to pay taxes then fine, you should not be allowed to use the roads, electricity grid, water supplies, have cheaper food basically access to pretty much anything that makes your country modern becaues that has at some point in time been funded through tax dollars. Enjoy living in the stone age.

 

If you are resisting arrest for a crime that you have been charged with and you are using a lethal weapon then that is not tax evasion, that is resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. Therefore you are not being killed over tax evasion you are being shot by the police because you are resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. I cannot spell it out any clearer than that.

 

"he was sent papers to show up in court. he didnt show up. take note that the mere fact that he owned a shot gun and sold it that was an inch under what the government said was 'legal' violated NO ONES RIGHTS at all. "

 

so he sold an illegal firearm, ok he shouldnt have been set up on a sting, but if he sold an illegal weapon, then that is an illegal weapon. What about peoples rights not to have illegal guns floating around on the market, he sure as hell violated those rights. I don't agree with the fact his wife and child got involved in the situation, they were innocent. He violated their rights to be free by conducting in criminal activity.

 

see you twist everything that I say to you and I can just as easily do the same to points you provided. I certainly don't believe every law is fair and correct however hte whole story you posted has nothign whatsoever to do with tax evasion, he was selling illegal firearms.

 

You talk about closing the borders and not allowing people into the country, what about these peoples rights to freedom and living where they want?

[Decyferon]

Also you will happily allow a corporation to do anything it wants because of the 'free market', yet if the government is trying to make changes that will benefit a great number of people you are against it, simply because it is the government.

 

So if a company decided that it would supply power but only to white people, is that fine? They are allowed to do what they want and shouldn't be regulated or kept in check, no one has a right to determine who is running these companies, they can be complete criminals, yet a democratically elected government cannot do what the people who voted them into power actually wants them to do.

[angelofdeath]

If you are so concerned with people rights and the violation of people and taking of peoples property, why haven't you given your land over to the native americans who had their rights violated and their land stolen. Yur country was built on the very foundation of what you are against. The people that wrote the constitution owned slaves had land stolen from people who's natural rights were violated. It is a country built on complete hipocrasy and ignoring of basic facts. I understand why people in America would not want to pay taxes to the king of england, I wouldnt pay germanys taxes. But I would pay taxes to MY country.

 

quite correct you are.

all land in america was not 'stolen' however. forced genocide and removal the american indians is a horrible thing. slavery is a horrible thing. take note that the government protected slavery. they made it a crime to not return a runaway slave to its owner! the government was the culprit in the forced genocide the native peoples.

 

the american colonists were PART OF BRITAIN! they were not there own country until the seceded from britain and kicked them out of their land.

 

The crime is tax evasion, last time I checked that was a crime, I don't condone locking someone up for it, but I do say fine them, if everyone else is paying taxes what makes them so special that they don't have to? If they don't pay the fine then that is seperate from the original tax evasion crime, they are refusing to pay the legally allocated fine as given by the law courts of the land. I ony said police are able to use dealy force when they are confronted with deadly force. I mean really if you don't want to pay taxes then fine, you should not be allowed to use the roads, electricity grid, water supplies, have cheaper food basically access to pretty much anything that makes your country modern becaues that has at some point in time been funded through tax dollars. Enjoy living in the stone age.

 

 

this is where the problem lies. you cant even comprehend my argument to refute it properly.

there is no need to repeat myself.

the heart of the argument is that you favor force to make people pay for things. i dont.

surely, if someone doesnt pay for government roads they wont use them. even though you could make the argument that people who dont pay for gas can still use the road like bicycle people do today or pedestrians. but lets forget about that for now...

if you dont pay for something in a store or at a private business, you dont receive the good or service. it works the same way with what you are talking about. if you dont pay for it, you dont get the service.

 

If you are resisting arrest for a crime that you have been charged with and you are using a lethal weapon then that is not tax evasion, that is resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. Therefore you are not being killed over tax evasion you are being shot by the police because you are resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. I cannot spell it out any clearer than that.

 

i stated before i only favor people being thrown in jail or charged with a crime if they violate someones rights. tax evasion isnt violating anyones rights. its like throwing me in jail because i didnt give the robber my money.

forget about me having weapons in resisting enforcement agents throwing me in jail for the non violation of peoples rights. if i refuse to submit in anyway... such as chaining myself to a wall in order not to leave my house, they will forcibly remove me by whatever means necessary to put me in jail.

but enter the weapon.

if someone is attempting to kidnap you, do you have a right to resist it with whatever means necessary? sure. ill help you resist it. so if i believe that only people who have violated someones rights should go to jail, if someone is coming after me for not giving them a certain amount of money or for weapon ownership or possession of an illegal plant substance, i have the right to resist it on the principle of natural rights theory and the non aggression principle.

 

What about peoples rights not to have illegal guns floating around on the market, he sure as hell violated those rights. I don't agree with the fact his wife and child got involved in the situation, they were innocent. He violated their rights to be free by conducting in criminal activity.

 

there is no right to not have anyone else own a gun, a knife or a kids toy. you only have a right to not have your rights violated. that is it. you cannot legitimately tell people what they can and cannot own.

the gun was not used in any criminal activity. as i said there was no victim. it was sold to an undercover ATF agent.

look... you are a male, right? you are equipped to be a rapist. should we throw you in jail because of this? this what you are advocating because someone owns a gun. all women are equipped to be prostitutes. should we throw them in jail as well?

 

you twist everything that I say to you and I can just as easily do the same to points you provided. I certainly don't believe every law is fair and correct however hte whole story you posted has nothign whatsoever to do with tax evasion, he was selling illegal firearms.

 

tax evasion has everything to do with it.

the ATF are agents of the treasury. tax collection agents. the firearms crime that he committed was not having a class III license which requires a tax on the gun. if you pay the tax, you commit no crime.

 

but even if that wasnt the case... the principle is the same. ownership of an inanimate object, VIOLATES NO ONES RIGHTS!

 

if you cant even understand my case, you cant refute it.

your case just basically boils down to:

"but but..whatever, you just cant do that, im sorry. you just cant. a democracy created those laws and well, thats just that. you are selfish. rights blah blah blah are not sacrosanct at all. they mean nothing. i still favor throwing people in jail for non crimes just because i dont like people doing certain things. '

 

 

You talk about closing the borders and not allowing people into the country, what about these peoples rights to freedom and living where they want?

 

on the surface you are correct about this. however this is not quite my position on immigration.

my position is that all property should be privately owned. and property owners have a right to stop trespassing. but i'd prefer not to get into whole other area of discussion that would require lengthy responses.

[angelofdeath]

Also you will happily allow a corporation to do anything it wants because of the 'free market', yet if the government is trying to make changes that will benefit a great number of people you are against it, simply because it is the government.

 

So if a company decided that it would supply power but only to white people, is that fine? They are allowed to do what they want and shouldn't be regulated or kept in check, no one has a right to determine who is running these companies, they can be complete criminals, yet a democratically elected government cannot do what the people who voted them into power actually wants them to do.

 

i think a better question is: "do i favor capitalist acts between consenting adults?"

yes, i do. as you have no problem with gay people or drug use (nor do I) why do you not favor allowing consenting adults to engage in private economic behavior?

 

im against the government doing anything because governments have no money unless it is robbed from the citizens. it is based on force. if you want to participate, fine. if you dont, there should be no penalty.

 

democracy does not protect rights. in a true democracy, which you favor, the majority can easily trample the liberties of the minority. it is done all the time. in a true democracy, there is nothing from keeping the majority from deciding that all people that look and talk like decyferon are subhuman and that they should be killed. because the majority decides the law and because it is infallible, it can do whatever it wants. i do not favor this. i favor liberty, not democracy. no democracy has a right to vote on any of my rights. plain and simple.

 

does a company have a right to restrict access to its services or entry? sure. do you have a right to restrict a nazi from entering your property? yes. do you have a right to tell them that they cant protest on your front yard? sure. do you have a right not to sell your products to a nazi? sure.

 

let me remind you that during the days of segregation it was the democratically elected majority that decided blacks were subhuman and that they needed to be separated from whites. the government passed laws forbidding voluntary integration of the races. it was the system of capitalism that helped over turn this. why? because the capitalist wants to make money off of EVERYONE not just white people.

 

the scenarios people come up with are really non issues. freedom of association is a right. forcing someone to engage in a transaction is not a right or forcing people to deal with people they may not want to is coercion. force. partial slavery. if some greedy capitalist really decided he only wanted to serve whites (which totally undermines your argument that all capitalists only want to exploit people) then obviously all the millions of rich black people would supply power to who they want to.

[Decyferon]

I can quite as easily say that you do not comprehend my arguement. There have been plenty of cases of tax evasion that have been to court, no precident has been set that has ruled in favour of the people who didn't pay there tax. Paying tax is a law in America, you claim it isn't but the law clearly states that it is. While I fully understand you don't agree with it, and see your points, the fact still remains that it is the law. You break the law there is punishment, I understand that you don't believe it is a crime unless it is murder, theft, rape etc, but law is more complex than that.

 

You case study of the guy selling an illegal firearm just shows, he didn't have the correct license so was in breach of the law (take away the sting part of the operation which I do not believe in). That is what it boils down to, he was breaking the law of the country, again you may not agree with the law, but it is the law. The gun may not have been used for any criminal activity but it was still an illegal weapon.

 

It is like me having a kilo of heroin (an inanimate object) and then claiming that I was violating no ones rights so therefore it shouldnt be illegal, I would love to see that defense in a court of law because you would be laughed all the way to the prison.

 

Your claim of natural rights does fly in the face of the law of the land, just because you think it is a certain way does not make it fact. The fact is drugs are illegal, whether they are violating your rights or not, they are illegal, that is the law of the land. Your claim of natural rights would not hold up in a court of law.

 

As I have stated before there are lots of laws I do not agree with, it doesn't mean that because I don't believe in them that they are no longer laws. You are tied to the law of your country. You don't like it and it bothers you that much then move.

[Decyferon]

If a company was to refuse to sell a product to a black person based on their race then they would be taken to the cleaners under discrimination law. If someone tried to re-enact the segregation that America used to have they they would be prosecuted under the International human rights laws.

 

It is like the BNP in England, they refused non whites to join their political party, they have been forced under law to change that because it is discrimination.

 

If taxes were not collected from American citizens then the country would not be the country it would be today, you would have no military, you would essentially be a 3rd world country. If that is what you want then great, but comparing rules written in the 18th century to modern day society will never work but the world moves and and evolves.

[angelofdeath]

Paying tax is a law in America, you claim it isn't but the law clearly states that it is. While I fully understand you don't agree with it, and see your points, the fact still remains that it is the law. You break the law there is punishment, I understand that you don't believe it is a crime unless it is murder, theft, rape etc, but law is more complex than that.

 

i never said that tax evasion didnt break the law, i said it involves no victim and therefore it is not a punishable crime because no rights were violated. you do not understand this. if you did, you would be coming at me from a different angle instead of saying the same thing about how the law is the law no matter if it is right or wrong.

slavery was protected by law for years. im not concerned about what the 'law' is, im worried about if it is based on the principle of natural rights and the non aggression principle.

 

You case study of the guy selling an illegal firearm just shows, he didn't have the correct license so was in breach of the law (take away the sting part of the operation which I do not believe in). That is what it boils down to, he was breaking the law of the country, again you may not agree with the law, but it is the law. The gun may not have been used for any criminal activity but it was still an illegal weapon.

 

yes the 'law' was broken, but no ones rights were violated. that is the key.

since no ones rights were violated, none of these people deserved to die. by supporting a system that favors wrongs prohibited instead of just evils in themselves, you support the law using all its might to come down on non conformists.

 

were the jews right in resisting nazi rule? could jews shoot nazi soldiers through the head if they were armed in order to save their lives? but this was against the law! could african slaves use any means necessary to escape their bondage? but that is against the law!

 

if law doesnt square with basic moral and non aggression principle, it is no law at all.

 

It is like me having a kilo of heroin (an inanimate object) and then claiming that I was violating no ones rights so therefore it shouldnt be illegal, I would love to see that defense in a court of law because you would be laughed all the way to the prison.

 

sure the argument wont stand up in a court that says its illegal.

but it will stand up in natural rights court.

possession of heroin is not violating anyone elses rights. you may not like that someone possesses it but in my view you have no right to restrict them.

should we also outlaw rope, because people might hang themselves? what would the penalty of suicide be? death?

 

 

As I have stated before there are lots of laws I do not agree with, it doesn't mean that because I don't believe in them that they are no longer laws. You are tied to the law of your country. You don't like it and it bothers you that much then move.

 

i guess you would be the good german. the one that follows orders. that doesnt hold weight pal... following orders isnt a justified defense.

 

when we didnt like your british laws in 1775, when they came to confiscate our weapons and collect taxes, we shot them. we didnt move. we defended ourselves.

[Decyferon]

no if i disagreed with a law strong enough then I would not adhere to it, I am told graffiti is vandalism and is against the law, doesn't stop me from doing it. Smoking weed is against the law it doesn't stop me. If I was told to round up a group of people and kill them, then I wouldnt do it. I know following orders isn't a justified defense, but I wouldn't use that as a defense, I would hold my hand up say I'm not doing it, if you are gonna punish me then punish me because I am willfully breaking the law, a law I don't agree with, but it is still the law. There was conscription in the war, I would not have joined the army, I would have taken the jail time over being forced to join the army.

 

I do get your point, you are saying it is a victimless crime therefore there should be no punishment, but it isn't that simple, there is no natural rights law court that will back you up for not paying your taxes. I understand that you don't agree with it and that you think that because no one ges hurt then why should you be punished, but that is not law. It could be argued that not paying your taxes does have victims, if the roads were unable to be maintained because you didn't pay taxes and this caused the roads to break up and there be car accidents because you couldnt fix the roads and people died, then I would argue then that there are victims to your crime of not paying taxes.

 

Your arguements can be very flimsy sometimes, to say that selling heroin is violating no ones rights, what about the right to not be dependant on a drug that ruins millions of lives, is the cause of many subsequent crimes (real crimes in your book like robbery, murder etc).

You are a slave to the drug, your freedom has been taken away.

You use the example of rope being used for suicide is silly, rope has many different uses, selling heroin to junkies does not.

 

I understand the revolution, if I were told to pay money to the government of say switzerland then I wouldn't do it. If my taxes that I pay to my country are used to give aid to other countries then I am fine with that. You keep throwing the revolution up as an example, but we aren't living in a revolution, we are a modern society. The difference is I am being a realist to the world we live in while you are arguing a point that doesn't stand up in any court.

 

If you disagree with a law strong enough then, as we live in a democracy, you can petition the people that represent you to make changes to the law. You can start your own political party with your own agenda, there are many ways to change things rather than just saying no I disagree with this.

[angelofdeath]

no if i disagreed with a law strong enough then I would not adhere to it, I am told graffiti is vandalism and is against the law, doesn't stop me from doing it. Smoking weed is against the law it doesn't stop me. If I was told to round up a group of people and kill them, then I wouldnt do it. I know following orders isn't a justified defense, but I wouldn't use that as a defense, I would hold my hand up say I'm not doing it, if you are gonna punish me then punish me because I am willfully breaking the law, a law I don't agree with, but it is still the law. There was conscription in the war, I would not have joined the army, I would have taken the jail time over being forced to join the army.

 

we are on the same page then. i dont know why you spent so much time disagreeing with my points.

im specifically saying that the government tramples citizens rights and jails them for non crimes. no where have i said that i will my case in a government court room.

 

Your arguements can be very flimsy sometimes, to say that selling heroin is violating no ones rights, what about the right to not be dependant on a drug that ruins millions of lives, is the cause of many subsequent crimes (real crimes in your book like robbery, murder etc).

You are a slave to the drug, your freedom has been taken away.

 

its not flimsy at all. its consistent. the mere act of someone shooting heroine is not an invasion of my rights. the minute anyone robs you, shoots you or infringes your rights as a result of drug use, THEN you arrest them, charge them, throw them in jail.

correct, you are a slave to drugs if you use them. that is why i dont. but the point is the choice was taken voluntarily. you taking a drug in no way whatsoever affects me in the least.

 

by you making the case that someones drug use is a violation of your rights even if they havent raped you, murdered you or stole anything from you is essentially a recipe for endless state intervention into every aspect of the lives of the people. i suggest only crimes that involve a violation of rights should be punished. line drawn. end of story.

 

do you favor making suicide illegal? to save people from themselves? if people own their bodies, it is there choice of what to put in them.

 

If my taxes that I pay to my country are used to give aid to other countries then I am fine with that. You keep throwing the revolution up as an example, but we aren't living in a revolution, we are a modern society. The difference is I am being a realist to the world we live in while you are arguing a point that doesn't stand up in any court.

 

you keep missing something.

 

the british government controlled the american colonies. they were property of the british government and came under their rules. it is not like you having to pay taxes to germany. we didnt want to pay taxes to our own government. its that simple.

 

i never said this argument would hold up in court.

the american argument didnt hold up in court at all. the british still wanted to tax us and restrict our trade and take our rights as free born englishmen.

we didnt talk about taking them to court. when the british came to take our rights, we shot them.

a government court, a court controlled by the very same people violating your rights will not protect them in these cases.

[Decyferon]

I am acknowledging the law though, I may be breaking it but I know I am, if I get caught I get punsihed, I would have nothing bad to say I wouldnt cry about it, I would say fair enough. It isn't a violatoin of my rights to arrest me for smoking weed, or doing graffiti. I know the law. I would accept my punishment and move on, would I agree with it and be happy, probably not, but I still willfully broke the law, you break the law you get punished whether someone gets hurt or not, it is still the law.

 

So you didn't pay taxes to the British and formed your own government, that government is telling you that it is the law to pay taxes, you don't you get punished, you don't have to abide by that law, but you better be ready for when they catch you. Start waving your gun around and claiming natural rights and see what happens. Your in the same position you were in at the start - thats progress for you!! If you wanna do something about it start a new revolution.

 

I agree with suicide, I think it is a fucking selfish thing to do, but it is up to them if they want to die, but then it isn't illegal, if it were then well there would be fuck all they could do about it unless you weren't successful, would I agree with that law no, would I try and do something to change it, no because I don't plan on topping myself so no skin off my back.

[angelofdeath]

^^

all governments take away rights.

 

just like how the germans were killing jews by the millions.

i guess you would just say...'well, they passed _____ law to put jews in work camps and kill them. if they resist they get punished. its the law. when they come around to get you, start waiving your gun around and claim natural rights and see what happens.'

 

no one claimed self defense or defense of rights is 'easy.'

[Decyferon]

you are comparing the nazi murder of Jews with normal government, I cannot think of a further comparison, it turned into a dictatorship/military machine, not a democratic government. HUGE difference. While he may have originally been elected once he was inpower the democratic process ended. A dictatorship is not a democratic government.

 

This would not happen nowadays.

 

I am not a massive government supporter by any means, but I am also not so blind to think they are the most evil thing on the planet.