Any libertarians here?

Post Reply New Topic

Look how many people kept saying that taxes were illegal right up to the point they were taken into prison. The whole idea is along the same lines as those who think the government planned 9/11 and such. In other words, the tinfoil hat crowd.

My aunt has a degree in library science - I guess she is one.

There is quite a bit of overlap between tax deniers and the 9/11 truth movement and the general NWO conspiracy crowd.

Well, there is also an overlap there and with the YEC crowd as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovin ... nspiracies

So, really, there does seem to be a tinfoil hat-ness involved here.

Yeah, I wanted to make a thread about librarians in response to this thread, but I decided against it. Your comment did make me smile though.

There's a great YouTube video making fun of Kent Hovind but it's got really strong language so I can't put a link.

It could be. "Trying to remember if it is Harry Browne..." usually means someone is not sure.

Now, take note people, this is the NEW American method of marginalizing someone's view in a public forum by comparing them to say a 9/11 denier when they say something that YOU do not agree with. I don't compare anyone to a Holocaust denier simply because they can not accept 15 UN resolutions allowing the US to invoke military action in Iraq! Good Day, new America.

Well, I was just noting a correlation between income tax denial and other forms of tin hattery.

Ever wonder why there are people that are guilty as sin but they still get off the hook in a court of law? Because, many times, lawyers have no other option than to investigate the origins of the law. And, if they find that the law was not properly introduced then the law is non-binding. Many, many, too freaking many laws in this country were and have been passed without the proper number of votes required by their own legislation procedures at whatever level.

This country has enough "Well, I was just..." people. Man up.

And this should have been, and still should be viewed as a direct contradiction to the original intentions of our founding fathers. There should not be any form of direct taxation. I won't get into the conspiratorial nature behind the passing of this Amendment, suffice to say there are a lot of questionable things regarding the background of this Amendment.

There is something to this, but at the same time, there is more than enough legal precedent to send you to jail for not paying taxes. Not that it is right, or even justified, but you don't pay, you go to jail. I pay my taxes. I am ENRAGED when I'm writing out that check, but I do it all the same.

Orwell, I'm not exactly a proponent of zer0netgain's views, but I would say that the more appropriate position lies somewhere in between where he stands and where you stand. Even with the legal precedent, even if it IS legally justified, it's still wrong.

If you want a link to what he's saying, I will provide it, but I'd definitely be taking everything you read with a grain of salt. You are now entering conspiracy land.

Google is your friend

The New World Order definitely exists. It has been referred to and has been defended by several politicians, including George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger. If it's simply a non-existent entity, why would those in powerful positions not only admit to its existence but defend it as a just cause?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJ ... re=related

Last edited by timeisdead on 12 Jun 2009, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a distinction to be made. Yes, there is much overlap between tax protesters and truthers, but I would say there is more weight to the arguments of tax protesters. At the very start, there is the distinct intention of early America to avoid a central bank, to assign no direct taxation. Our founding fathers were very smart men, and a good majority of them understood that money must have real value, not fiat consumer-confidence based value.

While there are still many of the tinfoil hat crowd within the tax protest movement, I think there is much more weight to their position than that of the truthers (most of whom in my view are profiteering fear-mongers, whereas the tax protesters are doing it based on what they feel is right).

The NWO stuff is way over-hyped. Yes, there is certainly a group of people, composed of political figureheads, international bankers, etc that exerts a certain amount of influence. That does not mean there is a massive conspiracy to create a one-world government, instate eugenic principals, and create a sub-species of subhumans to serve the master species (yes, this is what some people actually believe).

Actually, I would imagine that a lot of it would really just be exploiting the indeterminate nature of the law, and finding legal loopholes that either exist in the writing of a law, the existence of other laws, or in the practical application of these laws as found by prior courts. I mean, Nick Freeman, a lawyer known for his insane ability with traffic law, does not attack the origins of any law(in fact the lower courts usually don't have much control over what is considered law and what isn't from what I can tell) but rather attacks according to existing loopholes, as can be seen from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

Where some of these loopholes are things such as "case law from 1922", "Criminal Justice Act of 1925", and little technicalities "the relevant legislation says that the blood must be taken by someone who is not associated with the driver's care. In this case, it was taken by a surgeon directly involved, and so the man was acquitted."

The cases where I would imagine that the nature of the law is seriously taken into question would more likely be in supreme court type cases, as judicial review, where the existence of laws is taken as subject to higher laws, is typically only a serious option for the highest relevant courts.

As for "Well, I was just..." I do not see Orwell's actions as being particularly blameworthy as his efforts were clearly to point out that a certain belief seemed correlated with other beliefs that are typically considered to be signs of a poor belief-forming mechanism. This is not a deductive argument that disproves anything, but it is an inductive argument by which individuals can determine whether or not something seems trustworthy. Therefore, I do not see a major issue with this action.