Lead trumps gold
"Send lawyers, guns, and money. The shit has hit the fan." - Warren Zevon Quote
The fact remains that those with the most guns win.
Topic: Failed legal arguments (Read 1684 times)
Lead trumps gold
Quote
The fact remains that those with the most guns win.
There are many people in government who are simply waiting for people to show up who have knowledge and balls. I can give you the former:
An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner
Bob's Bicycles by Peter E. Hendrickson, an allegory of what happened in the U.S. regarding taxation.
Grow your own balls. If it helps, consider the possibility that you pay taxes to a government that is obligated to let you keep them if you understand enough, and that by remaining ignorant, you are helping kill innocents all over the world by allowing funding for empire building to continue.
Here are many stories of the government fulfilling this obligation.
Sheeple don't make life suck just for themselves.
An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner
Bob's Bicycles by Peter E. Hendrickson, an allegory of what happened in the U.S. regarding taxation.
Grow your own balls. If it helps, consider the possibility that you pay taxes to a government that is obligated to let you keep them if you understand enough, and that by remaining ignorant, you are helping kill innocents all over the world by allowing funding for empire building to continue.
Here are many stories of the government fulfilling this obligation.
Sheeple don't make life suck just for themselves.
I find it interesting that in order for one of the arguments to be debunked, we Americans have to accept the fact that the Secretary of State may pass Constitutional Amendments.
Meaning that right now, John Kerry is the most powerful person in the country.
As for any tax loopholes or whatever, I understand that there are a lot of people with guns. They have decided that my money does not belong to me. Because I do not have more guns than they do and I do not wish to be shot or threatened to be shot until I am in a cell constrained there by said threat of being shot, I must hand over my money.
It does not matter what laws actually say. The supreme court has even determined that if something is commonplace, that trumps the wording of the law.
The fact remains that those with the most guns win.
We are all subject to the whims of the majority of Americans. The same people who watch Fox News and CNN and think it is news, and the people who watch American Idol and go watch Justin Bieber.
Meaning that right now, John Kerry is the most powerful person in the country.
As for any tax loopholes or whatever, I understand that there are a lot of people with guns. They have decided that my money does not belong to me. Because I do not have more guns than they do and I do not wish to be shot or threatened to be shot until I am in a cell constrained there by said threat of being shot, I must hand over my money.
It does not matter what laws actually say. The supreme court has even determined that if something is commonplace, that trumps the wording of the law.
The fact remains that those with the most guns win.
We are all subject to the whims of the majority of Americans. The same people who watch Fox News and CNN and think it is news, and the people who watch American Idol and go watch Justin Bieber.
Quote
we note that the 16th Amendment has been in existence for 73 years and have been applied by the Supreme Court in countless cases. While this alone is not sufficient to bar judicial inquiry, it is very persuasive on the question of validity
Being honorable is often not very profitable, especially when dealing with the state. It is possible to avoid certain taxation in certain cased. For example look at the nice tricks large American companies do with foreign subsidiaries. Quite a nice amount of tax is generated by the Netherlands by all the companies officially earning their money here 
If you can legally avoid taxes, I'd go for it. But using the arguments in that article you are just wasting everyone's time including your own.
If you can legally avoid taxes, I'd go for it. But using the arguments in that article you are just wasting everyone's time including your own.
There's a few basic options:
1 - pay up as per the law and without anything complex
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resisters - accept what the law says, but refuse to pay up and be man enough and honest enough to know the state won't like this
3 - refuse to pay up based on some sort of crazy pseudolegal argument (and often end up worse off)
4 - find complex but legal schemes to reduce tax liability, or use a good accountant to minimise tax liability
Going down the path of option 3 doesn't even make any sort of ethical or political point - it just makes you look crazy.
Code:
Pseudolaw shares many homologous and analogous traits with pseudoscience
such as the use of argument from authority
According to this every law is pseudolaw. All that matters are ability to force upon your pseudolaw using various techniques and ability to punish those who does not agree with your pseudolaw.such as the use of argument from authority
When people talk about law, they commonly mean the legal system empowered by the state.
Pseudolaw is when someone comes up with bizarre legal arguments that have no basis in the actual legal system.
For an example of the difference:
Fred is brought into court on tax evasion charges. Fred is either dishonest or crazy, or a mixture of both. He first tries to argue that the court is a maritime court, then he tries to claim the constitution doesn't actually allow taxation or that the person being charged is FRED and not Fred etc - this isn't going to help him at all and the judge will possibly add extra penalties.
Bob is brought into court on tax evasion charges. Bob is an honest man.
Bob stands up in court and says "under the laws passed by this government I would indeed be liable to pay taxes, though I wish it to be made known for the record that such laws are immoral". Bob is then found guilty, and taken to jail - but in some cases the judge may be more lenient than they would be for Fred.
Although there may certainly be an ethical or moral argument against various laws, until they're overturned by the relevant body (i.e the government), it's pretty crazy to think that the government will not enforce its own laws just because you say the right words.
Why on earth would anyone think that the government will stop taxing you just because you say the right words? If you want to protest tax, then man up and openly say "I know what the law says, i'm still not paying" - that at least is a bit more honourable.
Plenty of otherwise rational people have unfortunate blind spot in this area and resort to faith-based justifications when it comes to law and government.
No, they are too afraid about their own life and well being to pick up battle rifle and aim for center of mass. Also they are called sheeple.Current judicial system is based on police state. Many laws, rules and punishments are inadequate, many crimes victimless and most important of all that many common practices in the higher ranks of
Plenty of otherwise rational people have unfortunate blind spot in this area and resort to faith-based justifications when it comes to law and government.
Code:
Pseudolaw shares many homologous and analogous traits with pseudoscience
such as the use of argument from authority
According to this every law is pseudolaw. All that matters are ability to force upon your pseudolaw using various techniques and ability to punish those who does not agree with your pseudolaw. such as the use of argument from authority
I've often wondered why these tax protesters can't just be honest and say "yes, the law says tax is owed - but I disagree with that law" and then accept that the state will in fact agree with the law and thus enforce it.
I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
They literally believe in magic. They study definitions from law dictionaries, and pour over the exact wording of statutes in the belief that if they find the right combination of words it will change the behavior of the people who make up the state, exactly like casting a magic spell.I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
That law doesn't work like that though. The people who control the apparatus of the state do what they can get away with and the law is just a tool used to intimidate the public into obedience. The reason we know this is because the law is only used to prosecute the peasants and never applies to the ruling class and apparatchik.
An average middle class citizen bouncing a $20 check is Serious Business, but a primary dealer who launders half the GDP of Mexico for the drug cartels is an unfortunate misunderstanding that we should just put behind us.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw
There is no justice or law as basic property of society. The violent means to force your rules and laws upon other people, no matter how crackpot your rules are is all that matters. If some militants had hundreds of thousands armed soldiers, with MBT tanks, jet fighters and nuclear armed submarines, they also could write their own laws and legal system and enforce it upon everyone.
Take example from commies in October revolution. They were illegal, crackpot, but using Mauser pistole and Maxim machine gun they forced everyone to accept their way of organizing society and laws.
The government is nothing more than the most successful criminal cartel to operate in a particular geographic region. Take example from commies in October revolution. They were illegal, crackpot, but using Mauser pistole and Maxim machine gun they forced everyone to accept their way of organizing society and laws.
The arguments of government sometimes are more crackpot than this.
There is no justice or law as basic property of society. The violent means to force your rules and laws upon other people, no matter how crackpot your rules are is all that matters. If some militants had hundreds of thousands armed soldiers, with MBT tanks, jet fighters and nuclear armed submarines, they also could write their own laws and legal system and enforce it upon everyone.
Take example from commies in October revolution. They were illegal, crackpot, but using Mauser pistole and Maxim machine gun they forced everyone to accept their way of organizing society and laws.
There is no justice or law as basic property of society. The violent means to force your rules and laws upon other people, no matter how crackpot your rules are is all that matters. If some militants had hundreds of thousands armed soldiers, with MBT tanks, jet fighters and nuclear armed submarines, they also could write their own laws and legal system and enforce it upon everyone.
Take example from commies in October revolution. They were illegal, crackpot, but using Mauser pistole and Maxim machine gun they forced everyone to accept their way of organizing society and laws.
I've often wondered why these tax protesters can't just be honest and say "yes, the law says tax is owed - but I disagree with that law" and then accept that the state will in fact agree with the law and thus enforce it.
I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
They literally believe in magic. They study definitions from law dictionaries, and pour over the exact wording of statutes in the belief that if they find the right combination of words it will change the behavior of the people who make up the state, exactly like casting a magic spell.I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
That law doesn't work like that though. The people who control the apparatus of the state do what they can get away with and the law is just a tool used to intimidate the public into obedience. The reason we know this is because the law is only used to prosecute the peasants and never applies to the ruling class and apparatchik.
An average middle class citizen bouncing a $20 check is Serious Business, but a primary dealer who launders half the GDP of Mexico for the drug cartels is an unfortunate misunderstanding that we should just put behind us.
I have heard many of those - all of them are really really bad ideas. They seem to be popular with the tin foil hat conspiracy set. Ironically their fear of being crushed by "the man" will be self fulfilling if they follow these tracks.
I've often wondered why these tax protesters can't just be honest and say "yes, the law says tax is owed - but I disagree with that law" and then accept that the state will in fact agree with the law and thus enforce it.
I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
I'd personally have a lot more respect for someone with the guts to stand up in court and say "under the law i'm guilty as charged, but the law is immoral" than I would for someone who tries to argue that the law somehow agrees with them using bizarre arguments like these.
Legal arguments that are guaranteed to put you in jail 
..
Jump to: