Pope wants “World Political Authority”, aka New World Order

Post Reply New Topic

Monkeys also don't drive cars, watch TV, have a computer, send their kids to school, build and live in houses in places where you would freeze to death without one, take medicine and undergo surgical procedures, etc.

Actually some (a few) do (things like that), and still haven't paid tax.

The clever ones. of course, head up the financial section if the country where they wreak havoc on the economy and still evade paying taxes by not registering as citizens.

Post 9-11 you guys have been spending - or rather borrowing to spend - approximately US $650 million a day in Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget has been in deficit since GW took over so in a sense the foil hatted one has a point.

<-- Ape. Ape ≠ monkey.

1. The tax code is written to favor the wealthy. Proportionally, the very wealthy pay less than the common working man. They likely see it's best to leave well enough alone.

2. The whole drive regarding the "tax honesty" movement is "SHOW ME THE LAW!" The problem is that challenges on the tax code go through the tax courts (owned and operated by the IRS...not exactly a fair trial). There are also "public policy" reasons for upholding an illegal and unconstitutional tax scheme. The IRS likes to cite several cases upholding income taxation, but all of those cases cite ONE CASE and that ONE CASE had an opinion that largely read as follows:

Although the petitioner established that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified, the income tax has been in place for over 40 years now and reversing that would not be in the best interest of the country.

Yes. It has been PROVEN that the 14th Amendment was ratified via an act of fraud by the U.S. Secretary of State. Nobody questioned this until about 40 years later, and when it was PROVEN in a court of law, the judge made a choice to ignore the maxim of law that "fraud can never prosper" and instead upheld an act of fraud for the benefit of the state. No court since then has revisited the error of that district court judge. This is a 100% political move of the court system and it is not based whatsoever in the rule of law.



The vast majority of Americans are utterly ignorant about 99% of what the law actually says. That's attributed to a poor educational system, a national BAR association that reworked education to eliminate legal education from everything but a specialized group of schools, and the natural inclination of the average person to believe that government agents tell the truth when they detail what the law requires of the average citizen.

You don't pay taxes, some armed thugs show up to make you pay. Intimidation is a powerful tool. The IRS should be classified as a domestic terrorist organization because they do most everything via fear and intimidation, which is the definition of how terrorists operate. Most everything the IRS does is outside the rule of law. Most banks hand over assets based on a "notice of lien" which is not a lien but a "notice" that the IRS intends to go to court and get a lien against an account. Legally, a "notice of lien" has no effect, but banks are so terrified of the IRS that the will illegally freeze funds absent the required court order.



Every penny of the "income tax" is utilized to repay the principle and interest the government borrows from the Federal Reserve Bank every year. We've long passed the point where the annual interest (for this year and past years) is greater than the total amount of taxes being collected. This is yet another illegal practice because the Constitution grants all power to print and coin money to the Congress. That they passed a law (not a constitutional amendment) to hand this control over to a private bank is illegal. Every year the U.S. Government BORROWS every penny they spend from a private bank with an agreement to repay it with interest when it has the power to print whatever money it needs.

Everything we have in this country as far as services are paid for via the multitude of other taxes we pay in addition to the income tax or government BORROWING money from a private bank to pay for it. Not because of the income tax.

No. I am saying that your objection applies to any conceivable form of government- a government where anyone who wants to can just declare themselves exempt from society is inherently self-defeating. You would have to be an anarchist to make such an argument, as otherwise you are arguing against yourself.



That's why I asked if you were an anarchist. If you are, your beliefs are at least consistent. Foolish perhaps, but at least consistent.


The logical implications of your ideas and arguments lead to places that almost no one wants to go.

You do realize that the income tax was specifically designed from the beginning to favor the poor and middle classes, relatively speaking? The whole point of taxing income is that you can make it a progressive tax and charge the rich more than everyone else. I mean, you're just plain wrong here.


When were we ever talking about the 14th Amendment, and what objection do you possibly have to it?

You may have been referring to the meme that the 16th amendment was never ratified. That's just a scam, it's been debunked.


Referring to the Fed as a private bank is disingenuous at best, and outright deceitful at worst.

It's cute how most of you merely change the subject. Very "brilliant"...at blowing hot air anyway.

You need to see the issue from a big picture perspective. There is no way an income tax would have ever gotten pushed through if it openly favored the wealthy and corporations. In the decades since it has been introduced, the income tax has been used to give the wealthy and corporations preferred treatment while breaking the backs of the middle class who actually make up the economic strength of the nation. Many nefarious ideas are promoted in an innocuous form at first to get it in place. Then you can make it into what you want it to be by modifying it a little bit every year...often with little to no public scrutiny.



Yes, my typo. I meant 16th Amendment, and NO it has not been debunked. I dare you to prove that via any independent (non-government or IRS) source. I've seen the actual court case. Don't tell me that it's been debunked. The most you can claim about debunking is that the IRS says that courts routinely reject this argument, which is true....because the first case to hear the matter went against the rule of law and for public policy reasons upheld an act of fraud by the U.S. government. Later court cases refuse to revisit the issue out of fear for the political backlash.



Again, you are wrong. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private banking institution. The US government has no ownership interest and the limit of "control" the President has is the ability to appoint the chairman of the Fed, which is an empty power because it's always someone the Fed proposes as a suitable candidate, never a person the president wants over the Fed's objections.

If you can prove otherwise, kindly do. I know you cannot.

Secession does not mean one removes any ties to neighboring peoples. Trade and treaties can continue to be made.
Secession is breaking off, a fragment of a whole becomes a whole within.
Like Florida becoming a country, leaving the US.
Why is that self-defeating? If people would want it they could have it.
Why must people be forced and intimidated to belong to the same nation other groups who think overwhelmingly differently belong.
Do you think any logical person wants to share a country with religious fundies that push for war? The midwest section of the US, they are better off away from other people who doesn't think like them.



So my beliefs are foolish and yours aren't?
I'm not the one agreeing with extortion.
I'm not the one thinking a system that grows and corrupts itself would actually do the opposite.
I'm not the one that thinks that force should rule over reason.
These are your beliefs, they are barbaric, they aren't foolish unless you believe it is for the people's own good.
(I'm not trying to insult you back and have a competition on it, I'm just pointing out where I see that your reasoning is backwards, I would like you to do the same if you can and leave the ridicule aside).



Why could that be?

Because the principle applies to individuals as well, and now any state, and thus any legal agreement between states (like trade or treaties) is impossible. Any law that any state can pass is null, because people will simply opt out of that particular state as it suits them. What if Florida secedes, but 45% of Floridians would rather remain part of the Union? Do they then secede from Florida and petition for readmittance to the Union? And within the region that secedes from Florida, some want to stay with Florida, some want to break off to form their own separate government? Eventually you end up with every household as its own state, and then teenagers start seceding and declaring their bedrooms to be sovereign.


And the many perfectly normal, rational Midwesterners who don't want to live in a theocracy? By the way, if you want to make Florida an antagonist to the Midwest, good luck finding bread to eat. The US is stronger together than as a couple dozen separate states. Europe would be stronger together than as a multitude of warring nations that still hold grudges from medieval times. We have little to gain by dividing ourselves, much more to gain by uniting.


I can just call it the social contract. Even libertarians believe it's legitimate to enforce a contract. Anyways, you can't escape extortion, even in anarchist pipe dreams. People will just extort you in different ways.


Because there are benefits to living in a civilized society with government. Life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short. The claim that we would be better off without government is empirically false.

Don't we all want our property to belong to us, completely.
Who wants the State intruding in their lives but a pawn?

Property is ethically enforced by an intersubjective consensus. Humans need to work on this.

I see that you discredit secession because you think secession can only happen from day to night.
I'm not talking about flick your fingers and voila! No more State, what now? Of course, chaos!
This migration would have to take decades. Society would have to restructure itself.
It is happening now, humans evolve.
Secessionist movements still growing. People are losing hope in govt. Our technology is allowing us to to find more efficient solutions. Crime is decreasing, violence is too(unless it is State violence, war and law enforcement). We humans of today reason more than those of the last century.
You shouldn't be that pessimistic about humanity, neither should you think utopia is possible(statelessness and a free market is not utopia).



I apologize, I kinda generalized when I made the example about the midwest and a great amount of its residents.

The US is "stronger"... To do what? To carry out wars, invade countries, overthrow govts, install puppet regimes... Yes, they are stronger that way.
I would like to see how does Washington get the money to make their wars without collecting money from all the state taxes.
War is funded through taxation. War is legitimized by fearful citizens.

Secession does imply hostility, why you make the notion of it, that can only mean you are paranoid and pessimistic.
It's like I am your friend and I do something that makes you break the friendship. Why would I have to hold a grudge against you for not wanting to be my friend, that is childish.

What do the US lose by secession?
MONEY! They lose income that helps them live like kings!




"Social contract"... And if I want to opt out of it because this govt is not using the money for good reasons? I'm anti-social, unpatriotic, a terrorist?
(That is not my main point. I go to the principles when I talk of taxation, how it is done, focus on that before you try to find an excuse for it. The same I could do to you, take your money at gun point and buy things that I myself think are good for you, that's extortion and so is the State's way).

Extortion can happen, yes, but institutionalized extortion, like taxation is, is even worse.
It is just like a mafia that "protects" you if you give them a cut, and if not, the boys visit you with some toys to play.



I don't oppose anybody having their government of choice, nor do I propose living in the wild like nomads(you exaggerated there).
Govts can be voluntary. Why do we have to use violence to solve our problems?
I would never force people to have my type of lifestyle, on the other hand, you would give money to a govt to use force and intimidation to promote your lifestyle.

The reason why today we have these non-voluntary violent govts is because most people have grown to know of no other alternatives.
Too bad the Internet is here to help them learn about new ways of thinking. If ideas seem reasonable for them, they will adopt them.

You can easily see a significant force growing. Talking about individual liberties, less State, END the FED people, more libertarians, anarchists, "revolution", ect.

That's a bit extreme. Just as ratifying the Constitution requires a super-majority, secession would have to represent the will of the vast majority of citizens. Yes, some might have to leave the state if they are seriously opposed to the secession, but that would not be a bad thing.

After all, I might not mind living in the same county with you, but I don't want to be forced to live in the same house as you.



Correction. Libertarians believe it's legitimate to enforce fair and just contracts. Besides, the US Government has long ago set the rule that there is no "social contract" in America. The "social contract" mandates loyalty to the state in exchange for duties from the state owed to the citizen. Courts have ruled that the citizen is owed no duties from the state.

We may always have to deal with extortion, but it should never be tolerated...always resist.

Except when they routinely draft you. And all that propaganda about helping the war effort.
Reality and laws do not always coincide, and reality always trumps legislation.

This goes without saying of course!

Last edited by Fuzzy on 16 Jan 2010, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I for one appreciate the interstate highway system, local utilities, law enforcement, fire department, public education (flawed as it is), public funding for scientific research which has immeasurable benefits in the long run, public health efforts, etc etc etc.


State violence is also on a sharp decline, and the more we cooperate with (and perhaps unite with) other countries, the less inter-national conflict there will be.


I'm pessimistic about humans, I'm somewhat more optimistic about the future. Of course I know utopia is impossible, that is why I accept the necessary evils of government involvement.


Stronger to provide a good standard of living to all its citizens. If, say, Florida and the Midwest were separate countries and used tariffs to gain revenue, Midwesterners wouldn't be able to afford as many oranges and Floridians wouldn't be able to afford as much bread (just a simple example). Also, many government roles may have an economy of scale, so we don't need to duplicate efforts in Ohio and Florida when one entity can take care of some things for both.


Sure it does. It's quite unlikely that one part of a country would seceded without feeling antagonism and hostility to the other part.


Humans are childish.


The only way to opt out of the social contract is to emigrate and renounce your citizenship. I wouldn't see any reason to attach any epithets to you for that choice.


The government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is why they can show up to collect taxes but you can not mug me, even if you use the money taken from me for my own benefit.


I suggest that without a government acting as an arbiter, you would be extorted in far worse ways than you are currently.


I was actually just quoting Thomas Hobbes.


I would love to see someone try to work out the logistics that would require.


I have enough libertarian leanings that I don't force others to live as I live. But everyone has to recognize that they have a least a marginal responsibility for the benefits they gain by living in society.