Bork's "Income Tax. Do You Volunteer?"

[JamesVincent]

Seems that one of Borks followers took the time to try to intimidate the admin who finally deleted the article.

Dear J

Curious that you can be the sole fascista responsible for deleting an article whose subject I am quite sure you are not even qualified to vet.No doubt this kind of action enlarges the subjective estimation you have of your (small) member. You would be better advised to respond to one of those many emails that promise to do that physically, and let the larger community decide the value of the article that is over your head. Cease and desist

Low and behold, was from an unsigned IP. What is the rules for doing this on the Wiki?

[Famspear]

Seems that one of Borks followers took the time to try to intimidate the admin who finally deleted the article.

Dear J

Curious that you can be the sole fascista responsible for deleting an article whose subject I am quite sure you are not even qualified to vet.No doubt this kind of action enlarges the subjective estimation you have of your (small) member. You would be better advised to respond to one of those many emails that promise to do that physically, and let the larger community decide the value of the article that is over your head. Cease and desist

Low and behold, was from an unsigned IP. What is the rules for doing this on the Wiki?

Wikipedia administrators (and experienced non- admin Wikipedia editors like me) have seen it all. Personal attacks, physical threats.

Users at anonymous IP addresses are certainly allowed to edit in Wikipedia and to participate in discussions. What the anonymous user in this case may not understand is that the administrator who closes a delete discussion and deletes an article is always an experienced editor who was not involved in the deletion discussion. If a disgruntled user (like the anonymous IP address user) attacks the editor who made the delete decision, the anon is generally going to get nowhere with the Wikipedia community.

Again, this illustrates the cluelessness of Delusional Soapboxing Non-Wikipedians who somehow think they're the very first ones to come up with the idea of using Wikipedia as a soapbox to spread their views.

Wikipedia articles, for all their faults, are indeed a encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not a "democracy"; it is not a forum for the publication of the original research (a term of art) of Wikipedia's editors, anonymous or otherwise.

Part of the reason that Delusional People (e.g., tax protesters, "sovereigns", etc.) have this feeling that Wikipedia is something that must be "broken into" and that it is difficult to "break into" is that "breaking in" is precisely what they are trying to do -- they want to break into it, to use it for their own purposes. Delusional People falsely "perceive" that the established Wikipedia community is there to "cover up" what the Delusional People feel is "The Truth" or to block the spread of knowledge.

In reality, there should be no need for new users at Wikipedia to feel they are having to "break into" it. If the new user's motivation is pure, and the user is diligent in learning the rules and following those rules, he or she should do just fine.

[Famspear]

The anon at Wikipedia wrote:

....Curious that you can be the sole fascista responsible for deleting an article whose subject I am quite sure you are not even qualified to vet.....

This illustrates the cluelessness of the poster (I'll call him "Bork"). The admin who deleted the article is not responsible for vetting or investigating the subject matter. Bork simply doesn't get it. Bork is trying to argue the merits of the views in the article. The Wikipedia community, including the admin who deleted the article, doesn't care about that. The "truth" vel non of the article is not the issue. A deletion discussion does not involve a "vetting" of the article for its "truth".

The issue is: Does the article violate Wikipedia's rules (in this case, especially the rules on Verifiability and No Original Research). Bork and his sockpuppets never quite "got it." The reason Bork never "got it" is that Bork wasn't interested in learning Wikipedia's rules or in contributing to Wikipedia in the proper way. Bork simply wanted to use Wikipedia to spread his own ideas.

[Arthur Rubin]

If he doesn't understand the Rule of Law, why is it so surprising that he doesn't understand the rules of the forum (Wikipedia)?

[wserra]

If he doesn't understand the Rule of Law, why is it so surprising that he doesn't understand the rules of the forum (Wikipedia)?

If would put it a little differently: If he doesn't care about the Rule of Law, why is it so surprising that he doesn't care about the rules of a forum?

[dee_are]

If would put it a little differently: If he doesn't care about the Rule of Law, why is it so surprising that he doesn't care about the rules of a forum?

I think this is an interesting question about his mentality - is it that he doesn't care what the rules are? In that deletion thread, the anti-delete people just really didn't seem to grok that this wasn't about truth, this was about process, and at the end of the day, it didn't matter whether the article was right or not.

I suspect that for most of these guys, they feel that the higher truth that "the government doesn't have the moral right to take my earnings" (a position I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to, as a notional libertarian) should trump any questions whatsoever as to process. I think we just saw that play out in small-scale on Wikipedia - they were convinced they were right (in a fundamental, moral sense) and that therefore the way to win the battle was to convince everyone else of this.

[Nikki]

Unfortunately, they don't understand simple playground rules:

My shovel, my pail, my sandbox ==> my rules

[wserra]

I suspect that for most of these guys, they feel that the higher truth that "the government doesn't have the moral right to take my earnings" (a position I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to, as a notional libertarian) should trump any questions whatsoever as to process.

I agree, with a couple of additions. Their thesis is "the govt doesn't have the moral or legal right to tax my earnings"; the emphasized addition is what constitutes denial of the Rule of Law, since there is simply no dispute that the govt does in fact have the legal authority to tax them. They believe with such cultlike devotion that such niceties as the fact that Wikipedia doesn't belong to them become irrelevant.

And then there are the wannabe guru-profiteers such as the subject of this thread (and, of course, many others) who would say anything they think might gain them acolytes and offerings.

Welcome to Quatloos, DR.

[JamesVincent]

And yet Bork proclaims over and over that his "facts" and "truths" have nothing to do with taxes, like when he thought he shot Arthur down for linking his tax tirade, but the arguments are all the same for income tax denial or his pretty article. Has anyone ever told him that reversing the 14th amendment would piss off the blacks and women of any color since that would strip them of citizenship? Maybe we ought to send his tirades to the Black Panthers and see how much they like his arguments. Im sure they would love to hear him explain that the 14th amendment did absolutely nothing but make people citizens who were already citizens and nothing else, but an attempt by the government to defraud his fellow man of their ducketts. They might be pissed that they think no one cares about them, but I think they would be even more pissed of someone trying to take their citizenship away totally.


P.S. Welcome aboard Dee_Are. Hope you have a high BS tolerance, cuz youll see it in many forms on here.

[dee_are]

P.S. Welcome aboard Dee_Are. Hope you have a high BS tolerance, cuz youll see it in many forms on here.

Thanks, I absolutely do. Shoveling BS is a hobby of mine, it started with creationists maybe fifteen years ago, and I've spent a lot of time since then with alternative medicine people, psychics, conspiracy theorists, you name it.

The thing I'm interested in is the cross-section of all these people, how all of them are unable to process arguments that are convincing to the rest of us. I'm tending towards the opinion that what really sets all these people apart is that none of them could conceive of evidence that would change their position. I absolutely can - for example, in the case of this fella in this thread, all he has to do is produce a single person who has had meaningful income, and a letter from the IRS that says no tax is owed because they have no ability to compel payment. If that happens (and I can be convinced it's not a hoax), I'll change my opinion.

What set of events would cause Bork to change his position, and agree that the IRS has the legal authority to tax people? I leave aside the moral authority, because that's not an objective point.

I suspect Bork would probably say something along the lines of "I don't wast time on hypotheticals that don't matter, because I know I'm right," which is what all of these different groups of people tend to say. Every so often you hit one who's willing to think about what it would take to change his opinions, and that person is the reason I actually spend my time wading through all the BS.

For the rest of them, there seems to be a fundamental inability to follow the scientific method - to conceive of ways in which your hypothesis might be wrong, and test it. There even seems to be a lack of understanding about why that's even desirable. I don't know if it's a problem of general intelligence, or a particular mental blindness on this topic. I also wonder if it's a general blindness they have on other items, or if it's just on specific topics.

The amazing thing to me is how not only does Bork not have the evidence that would convince me (someone for whom this has ever clearly worked); he doesn't seem to even think that this lack is a serious problem.

[JamesVincent]

Im sure a psychologist would be able to give you an answer to the break in the mental chain, as it were. Megalomania, maybe. Its interesting that all of them follow the same patterns of thought and can not see what their actually looking at. I think in the case of Bork or others like them, this "theory" of theirs makes them bigger than they are. Like the quote I had earlier from the admin that closed his article down. What difference really does the size of a mans genitalia have in relation to the ability to think? Usually, in the real world, it would be the other direction. Usually its the one who starts the problems and creates a ruckus to make himself feel better so he can compensate for his own inferiority, without admitting its there. Sort of like the Napoleon complex with short men.

There was comment made, I think it was by Captain Kickback, to the point of saying that if Bork was ever put out of business, he would lose the _____ income he receives from idiots buying his stuff. Im sure there are people out there that send him money for whatever reason, but I think it would be more the lose of self and God-liness he feels by all these other people sucking up to him. It makes him feel important and he obviously has some issues with life in general. If he ever admitted, even to himself, that he was wrong then his whole ego would crash. Kinda hard for someone to admit their wrong when they are mentally stable and fit, almost impossible for someone who is mentally unfit and possibly unstable. All the evidence and misconstrued quotes and tirades and slandering in the world wont make him right, but he mentally cant make the leap because it would destroy his weakened mind.

A lot of people never allow their minds to grow past the point of getting through daily life and, as you will see, education is not what allows your mind to grow. There are plenty of idiots come through here, either as write-ups or posters, that have a supposed higher education, but are flaming retards that couldnt find their ass in the dark with their hands tied behind their backs. And Im sure we only see one little tiny part of a small segment of a little slice of the wacko pie.

So have fun with it.

[notorial dissent]

I suspect Bork would probably say something along the lines of "I don't wast time on hypotheticals that don't matter, because I know I'm right," ..............

.............For the rest of them, there seems to be a fundamental inability to follow the scientific method - to conceive of ways in which your hypothesis might be wrong, and test it.

dee_are, a very good, concise spot on analysis of the Borkster and his methods(or any of this crowd for that matter). As to why they avoid the scientific method, for exactly the same reasons as it will inevitably lead them to the conclusion they DON'T want. Despite all the claims of searching for the truth, doing research, etc., all any of that crowd is looking for is something to bolster whatever claim they are making at the moment.
Facts are inconvenient and disruptive to their scam and get in the way of a really good fantasy, so they don't want anything more to do with them than they can help,and they get really upset when people dig up and supply them with inconvenient ones that they had been trying so hard to ignore. The last thing Lenny wants is for someone to come along and remind the faithful that the copy of the law he is using to justify one or another of his fantasies isn't even really the law in question, and that it was also repealed a hundred years ago, and never said anything close to what he was claiming. He just really hates that for some reason.

[dee_are]

As to why they avoid the scientific method, for exactly the same reasons as it will inevitably lead them to the conclusion they DON'T want. Despite all the claims of searching for the truth, doing research, etc., all any of that crowd is looking for is something to bolster whatever claim they are making at the moment.

I mean, I guess that's the question for me. It's the same one I ask myself about, for example, people who charge money for "psychic readings". Does the practitioner know it's a lie? Or is he so thoroughly convinced of his own BS that he can't see his way out?

I'd guess for the leaders there're some in each camp, and it's hard to tell who's who. Leaving aside the people who are conscious liars (since those in my mind are pretty garden-variety uninteresting con men), what is it that makes these people not interact correctly with reality?

In the case of creationists, I spent a lot of long hours educating a few of them, and debating, and debating, and debating, and finally got down to the real baseline for them, which was "I feel I had a personal experience with God which led me to believe that the bible was inerrant truth; it says the Universe is ~6000 years old, and I therefore don't actually care about any evidence you provide to the contrary - I know from fundamental principles that evolution is incorrect, and I'm having this debate attempting to understand how you are able to invent all these lies in bad faith". They weren't con-men; they were people who held a belief set that was contradicted by plain evidence. Your average creationism believer hasn't really examined the evidence for evolution - these men (and, of course, they were all men) had examined it, and were trying to come up with some way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Even after all this, I tend to think most of these people are acting in good faith. The ones that aren't all that interesting - just garden variety con men, in my estimation (such as The Freedom Club folks, for instance). What interests me are the True Believers. Obviously, they're not interested in facts that contradict their position - but is it something more complicated, mentally, than simply running away from contradictory data? I'm especially drawn to these tax people, because their ideas actually are empirically testable, unlike (say) the 9/11 Truthers.

Anyway, I'm sure at the end of the day, nothing will change. My estimate is that roughly a fifth of the population will believe almost anything, and that will continue. I do wonder if The Internet is making these problems worse, or if they're just making them more visible. I also wonder if there's any way to systemically and effectively fight all of these various sorts of BS. I probably need a less annoying hobby.

-D.R.

PS: Bork (or any other person who believes this), if you're still hanging around out there, I'd love to hear your answer to my question, "What events would convince you that the IRS does have the legal power to tax the average American citizen's paycheck?" Even if it's something that you consider completely impossible to happen. For example, I believe very firmly that the Earth is round, and yet I can conceive of evidence that would convince me (or at least strongly imply) it was flat - if, while traveling long distances, far-away objects didn't drop over the horizon, but merely got further and further away, indefinitely - if I could, with very good telescope, see the Statue of Liberty from the top of the Eiffel Tower. In the case of the claim that the IRS doesn't have the legal power to tax American citizens, I'd like to see one (or, ideally, several) people who didn't pay taxes on income, and, through some process, got a "$0" balance statement from the IRS, and didn't go to jail. That would make me begin to seriously consider the claim that the IRS doesn't have the power to tax. What would it take you to believe that the IRS does have the power to tax?

[LPC]

there seems to be a fundamental inability to follow the scientific method - to conceive of ways in which your hypothesis might be wrong, and test it.

In law, the test of an argument is whether it works in court. But tax deniers and other lunatics similarly situated reject the idea that courts serve as arbiters of what the law is.

They then become free to create ideas about law that are completely reality-free and therefore completely unverifiable.

Which is why Wes (and others) have described Bork's ideas as "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!" ("Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!")

[Duke2Earl]

PS: Bork (or any other person who believes this), if you're still hanging around out there, I'd love to hear your answer to my question, "What events would convince you that the IRS does have the legal power to tax the average American citizen's paycheck?" Even if it's something that you consider completely impossible to happen. For example, I believe very firmly that the Earth is round, and yet I can conceive of evidence that would convince me (or at least strongly imply) it was flat - if, while traveling long distances, far-away objects didn't drop over the horizon, but merely got further and further away, indefinitely - if I could, with very good telescope, see the Statue of Liberty from the top of the Eiffel Tower. In the case of the claim that the IRS doesn't have the legal power to tax American citizens, I'd like to see one (or, ideally, several) people who didn't pay taxes on income, and, through some process, got a "$0" balance statement from the IRS, and didn't go to jail. That would make me begin to seriously consider the claim that the IRS doesn't have the power to tax. What would it take you to believe that the IRS does have the power to tax?

I think you may be underestimating the emotional and practical investment that true believers in these issues have committed. If evidence was shown to you that, as you say, the world was flat... you would probably just shake your head and then just get on with your life. On the other hand, tax deniers and sovrun citizen types have told me they have (their words) "devoted their lives" to the cause. If there was evidence that could convince them otherwise... well, they would have to admit that they had wasted their whole lives, given up the ability to have a productive life, impoverished themselves, and in many cases alienated their families and/or impoverished their children for absolutely nothing. They simply can't go there. It would destroy the entire basis they have built for their lives. So I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for an answer to your question.

[LPC]

And yet Bork proclaims over and over that his "facts" and "truths" have nothing to do with taxes, like when he thought he shot Arthur down for linking his tax tirade, but the arguments are all the same for income tax denial or his pretty article.

Which raises another question about Bork's ideas, which is "so what?"

Even assuming for the moment that Bork was right, and that it was possible to renounce federal citizenship while retaining state citizenship, why would anyone what to do such a thing? To avoid federal jury duty? In order to avoid the bother of voting in federal elections?

[JamesVincent]

It would appear that someone has been fooling around with the article 14th amendment and tried placing some of Borks nonsense into it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fourt ... nstitution

The admin who removed it commented he wasnt up on tax law but didnt believe that the text was appropriate. He was told if he didnt believe it was true then he should go read the 14th amendment.

[Gregg]

I mean, I guess that's the question for me. It's the same one I ask myself about, for example, people who charge money for "psychic readings". Does the practitioner know it's a lie? Or is he so thoroughly convinced of his own BS that he can't see his way out?

I have an open offer for pyschics, I'll pay for an hour of your reading, if you can charge it to my debit card without me giving you the card number. No one has taken me up on it yet.

[Nikki]

And yet Bork proclaims over and over that his "facts" and "truths" have nothing to do with taxes, like when he thought he shot Arthur down for linking his tax tirade, but the arguments are all the same for income tax denial or his pretty article.

Which raises another question about Bork's ideas, which is "so what?"

Even assuming for the moment that Bork was right, and that it was possible to renounce federal citizenship while retaining state citizenship, why would anyone what to do such a thing? To avoid federal jury duty? In order to avoid the bother of voting in federal elections?

Was the question rhetorical? Given the poster, one might think so.

However -- assuming it wasn't -- renouncing federal citizenship (according to the theories of the various wingnuts) is the first step towards removing onesself from the "Federal Zone."

Following their (what passes for) logic, since the income tax only falls on those under federal jurisdiction**, renouncing FEDERAL citizenship is the first step towards exiting the Federal Zone. There are other, equally inane, steps in the process -- such as stepping out of the ZIP code system by using "Non-federal NEAR [99999]" on the mailing address -- which ultimately make the person no longer subject to the income tax.

Your mileage may vary.

** It is necessary to accept each of their axioms, irrespective of validity, to reach their conclusions.

[notorial dissent]

dee_are, The thing with most if not all of the TD crowd, is that they are “true believers” even if it is mythology they have invented. I can’t say, from my limited experience that any of the major players we’ve come across do not believe what they are spouting, but in fact believe to the exclusion of all sense and reality, and will cling to their fantasy in spite of all evidence to the contrary, up to and including jail.

They are simply right and everyone else is wrong, is the common thread amongst them all. Some of the crowd are quite intelligent, some are several bricks shy of a hod, it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Once they latch on to whatever fantasy it is they cling for dear life. The point here is that they aren’t looking for anything that will disprove their fantasy, and will actively ignore it if presented, so there really isn’t anything that can be presented to the likes of Bork that will have the least significance.