Any libertarians here?

Post Reply New Topic

That article was interesting, but I take anything published by on a site like that (George Washington University) to basically have a real high probability of bias in favor of the "status quo."

The writer makes this observation, which I find both interesting and troubling....



So, what he's saying is that the government can commit fraud and get away with it because the court will not perform its function. This is what makes government criminal. The design of the American system is that every aspect of its function can be checked and balanced by functions of the other branches. If the court will not do its job when fraud takes place, then the system of government is broken.

Recently (2005) the Real ID Act was passed illegally. How? The law prohibits a bill from being attached to an emergency appropriations bill. This is because emergency appropriations bills sail past most of the procedures that slow down legislation and gives time for public comment. Still, that didn't stop it being illegally attached to a spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it hasn't stopped the government from trying to implement what it contains.

Perhaps the bigger crime is that even though a legal action could be tried, like anything else, that takes lots of money, and the average person cannot challenge the state purely because of limited financial ability. So, the government gets away with criminal behavior.

And your sources aren't biased?


I don't even know if it's worth the bother to respond to this.

Look, the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law. The legislature passes laws. If the courts claim "you didn't actually pass that law," they are stepping on the legislature's turf and overstepping their own bounds. This is the principle of separation of powers. How is the legislature committing fraud? If the legislature says they passed a bill, they did.

I think I can admit that perhaps your grasp of American history is stronger than mine. I'll have to get to some research before I can attempt to refute this.

My impression at the moment is that there wasn't actually much desire for such things, but that outside sources pushed them through. As I do, I admit that I could be wrong and will look for unbiased sources to confirm or deny said impression.

Orwell is strong imo. I will *FLEX* for you.

What was there to refute? The issue of the central bank was probably the biggest unresolved issue early on, remember the feud between Hamilton and Jefferson?

Anyways, US history isn't my specialty, so I could be wrong in places. Most of what I know of US history is just general knowledge, or derived from aimless Wikipedia browsing. But I think I'm mostly accurate on the general statements.


Hm. Well, there tends to be some populist opposition to the idea of a central bank, as expressed most strongly by the Jackson Presidency. I'm not really up on the history of central banking in the US, so I don't know if there was a general desire for a central bank when we established it, but I know most economists regard a central bank as largely necessary, and our economy seemed to suffer during the times when we did not have a central bank. I do know that there was significant popular support for the introduction of an income tax- it was definitely part of the Democratic platform, and the hugely popular William Jennings Bryan was a major proponent. The idea was that a graduated income tax was more fair than other methods of taxation, and most of the poor and middle class are fine with raising taxes on the rich.

Unbiased sources don't exist. You instead have to look at several different sources, analyze their biases, and take those biases into consideration when forming your own opinion.

I never made this claim. Please re-read my posts at your convenience.

And, yes it is cute to spell America with a K. Kalifornia was a precursor. And, no I am not responsible for that movie title.

I really don't know what this "true believer" stuff is. Please explain so that I know what I am being labeled as next.

My only mistake in this post was to mention someone's name that I confused with someone else. And, prefixing my mentioning of this name with "I may be wrong on this name..." is not good enough.

The point that I was making is that it is not good to compare one controversial issue with another simply to prove that the first issue is more absurd. Because, when you do that, there is a greater risk of stepping on someone's toes. For example, how many times on this site has someone been compared to a Nazi simply for thinking one way. If I was to say that the militant wing of feminism is just like the Nazi party or the 9/11 conspiracy people, does this help or hurt?

I have relatives in NJ, knew someone that did not make it out on that day. And, now I am being compared to a 9/11 conspiracy person. Good Day.

In describing myself, libertarian is one of the first five qualities that comes to mind. However the political party is not one I can support.

I suppose "Libertarian" is the closest label I can attatch to myself without having to use a 3-letter prefix and/or a hyphen.

You've claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that you shouldn't have to pay it, though you are compelled to do so. Your belief that the income tax is illegal is demonstrably absurd, so I still don't see what's wrong with pointing out that you maintain insane beliefs. Now, if you, like vibratetogether, simply claimed that the income tax is wrong, or bad policy, I wouldn't take issue. That's an opinion and it can be argued for or against. But when you make silly claims about basic historical facts, I'm going to call you out, and if you persist I'll likely end up insulting your intelligence.

Looking back, it was definitely more zer0netgain than you going off on the alleged illegitimacy of the income tax. But from your posts it seems fairly apparent that you are fond of that particular style of tin hat.


A "true believer" is one who is so close-minded and inflexible in their beliefs that opposing evidence leaves them completely unfazed.

Anyways, you're the one who's insisted on keeping the analogy between tax deniers and other conspiracy nuts going- I was going to let it drop until you decided to push the matter.

Orwell, please show me where I claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that [I] shouldn't have to pay it. Still waiting.

I WAS JUST pointing out that the other poster had legitimate claims to his statements based on some criticisms of the Income tax and the origins of the tax itself. Which for me, I do not subscribe and never made the statement that I did. You assumed I did. No apology necessary, Orwell. Have a f*ckn good day.

Really? Do I really have to quote you?

All right then.


Claiming that someone has a pile of IRS documents that disprove the validity of the income tax, and indicating that the IRS is unable or unwilling to act against someone who refuses to pay their tax.


An indication that you believe the income tax is applied in violation of your rights, which plainly enough translates to a belief that you should not have to pay it.


Referring to the income tax as tyranny and lamenting "If only our founding fathers could have predicted this" indicate a belief that the income tax is illegitimate.


In the middle of a discussion about income tax, this certainly seems like a reference to the claims that the income tax was never actually passed into law, or the sixteenth amendment was never ratified.


Only in the minds of conspiracy nuts. The sixteenth amendment was rightfully passed, and besides that multiple court cases have upheld that the power to tax incomes existed before the sixteenth amendment. It only removed some requirements in the way the income tax was applied.


Actually, no, he did not. I've already refuted his claims.


Quit back-pedaling.


Yes, I assumed that you believed the claims you yourself made. In future I will not assume honesty on your part, thanks for setting me straight on that point.


Correct, no apology is necessary because I have nothing for which to apologize.

Orwell,

While not having followed your debate but having just read this post and the one above it, I'm led to believe you are greatly off-base. Oggleleus is correct that you completely straw-man what you quote. For starters when your replies include "indicates" or "seems like" or "translates" or "only in the minds of conspiracy nuts" you simply are not taking people at their words. I question why you would expend the effort to quote him if you're just going to paint him as you please.

The Harry Browne line is free of these claims but from those three sentences it is hard to see that Oggleleus isn't just conveying someone else's view. I'll take the time to read the thread.

"If only our founding fathers could have predicted this," is said in jest.

When I read the Oggleleus's lines that you quote I do not see where he has claimed income tax is illegitimate. You've said that for him.



Cheers.

Thanks Nolan.

My points stand, unless you want to clarify what you actually meant by those comments. How else are they to be taken? Especially with the pattern of them throughout the thread.

You could not show, after stating that you could, where I explicitly stated the viewpoint that you chose to assign me. I asked nicely twice. You refused. How else is this to be taken? Overconfidence?

It is difficult to have an open conversation when someone is a "true believer" of whatever they just assumed/labeled about someone else based on a pattern of statements throughout a thread.

Yes, I do not agree with the income tax. A court ruling is just one more court ruling from being overturned. A flat tax would be better but will never happen. It is good to talk about the evils of consumerism but the same people do nothing about it. All talk and more taxes.

Orwell, have a f*****g good life because having to be "right" all of the time will do wonders with the opposite sex.

Same here.

I am probably the antithesis of a libertarian.

Heck no.