Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[grixit]

I rescind my offer to give Eastman the title "Sovereign Socrates" because he obviously isn't, in spite of what he fondly imagines is inescapable logic. Some have referred to what he does as "sophistry". I think that's still too generous, if we call him a "Sovereign Sophist", we might as well call Merrill one too. Hence i propose we give him the title "Sovereign Salad Shooter".

[Cpt Banjo]

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

By using the term "immoral", you are venturing into the realm of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

If you answer "no", you admit that immoral law has no authority. Law without authority is a legal argument. Void ab initio is a legal term describing law that has no authority.

No, because you are equating authority with morality. They are not the same. The term "authority" may refer to legal authority or it may refer to moral authority.

If you don't answer, you admit that you can't answer no because you gut your own assertion that it's a philosophical discussion, and you admit that you can't answer yes because you paint yourself as a Nazi.

I can decline to answer because you are using an ambiguous term -- "duty". I may have a legal duty, but may not have a moral duty. Again, you're conflating legality with morality.

Mr E, it's quite clear that the only reason you posted here and have continued to drag this discussion out without clearly stating the point you're trying to make is that you crave attention. Heck, the day before you posted here you posted over on the Google misc.taxes site, announcing "Back under my own name". Having received zero responses, you decided to try your luck at Quatloos, where people have actually paid attention to you.The fact that the attention you have received has been completely derisive and the fact that you keep coming back for more suggests you have a masochistic streak. Look at your own website -- hardly anyone other than yourself has posted there or expressed any interest in your demonstrably false pontifications regarding tax law.

Well, I'm not going to act as an enabler any more until you come to the point. Others can reinforce your feelings of importance by deigning to respond to you, but to me you're just a gasbag who has historically posted frivolous anti-tax arguments. You're boring, Mr. E, extremely boring. Let me know when you actually get to the point.

[notorial dissent]

I reject your assertion that I am arguing philosophy by asking this question: Do you, Mr. Banjo, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

Again, more intellectual dishonesty and a non-questions. The actual question here is by "whose" definition of immoral? Mr. Eastman can reject whatever he likes, it will not change the facts when dealing with his maunderings.

[darling]

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

A wedgie.

[obadiah]

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

A wedgie.

[The Observer]

Okay.

If "the people" are four wolves, and the collective will of the people is to have the weakest wolf for dinner, according to Mr. Observer, that consensus grants legitimacy to have the weakest wolf for dinner.

I never said any such thing. This is where your sophistry leads us when you craft analogies that start off presuming that lambs and wolves would start a society together. Now you are assuming that wolf packs frequently and regularly organize for the purpose of dining on the weaker member. That doesn't happen at all.

Lambs would never seek to be included in a collective with wolves for the purpose of organizing a government, so your analogy fails.

Believe what you wish.

It is not a matter of what I wish to believe or what you wish to believe. It is a biological fact. Lambs and wolves simply do not function together as a society. You will never see lambs running with a wolf pack. They stay with a sheep herd. But again, this is where your sophistry ends up leading you - making assertions that run contrary to what science has observed. So how can I expect you to draw a logical conclusion if you can't even get some simple facts of life straight?

A better analogy would be better for you to attempt to avoid what my analogy brings to light.

No, as demonstrated above, your analogy is resulting in nonsense that contradicts biological fact. So it is better to avoid your analogy. Much better.

If three wolves need a fourth to hunt to survive, then ALL FOUR are under the same situation of hunt or die. That means wolf number four can choose to pick his nose AND die or wolf number four can choose to hunt and live. With or without the creation of the collective pack, with or without compulsion of the fourth wolf, the situation will still mean hunt or die for the fourth wolf if the fourth wolf intends to stay in the same environment as the other three.

Yes, and what you failed to mention is the fact that the situation is the same for the other three wolves as well. All four wolves (for the purpose of this scenario) need to hunt together in order to survive. That is the reason for organizing the pack in the first place - to make their hunting efficient and to minimize the amount of energy needed to bring down something that is either bigger, faster, or more agile which could avoid three or fewer wolves.

A better analogy would NOT introduce extraneous, undefined details, ambiguities, and loopholes for equivocations.

Then why do you do exactly that? After all, you are the person maintaining that wolves and lambs organize packs together.

In this instant, you have introduced the concept of a "wolf pack". Since wolf packs are social connections between members in a group, the wolf pack already exists. It is an existing society.

What your context shows is that you are actually attempting to introduce the concept of a "wolf pack government".

But wolf packs have rules in place in terms of how the pack is organized, who eats, who gets to mate, who makes decisions. So how can that not be an example of government already in existence for the wolf pack? You keep ignoring facts like these. Why?

Wasn't that the centralized planning in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Are you now trying to claim that Marxism as interpreted by Lenin and Stalin was based on their understanding of how wolf packs operate? Quite frankly, a goal of any government should be to be efficient at what it carries out. It is up to the people to respond when that it is not happening. The same thing happens in the wolf pack when the alpha wolf no longer is able to lead effectively and properly - the wolves support a new alpha wolf. By the way, that is another example of wolf government.

There are approximately 8-9 million people living in and around Manhattan Island, NY. There is NO government agency that exists to make feeding the masses of NY more efficient, Yet somehow food gets to their tables (at the lowest cost - Adam Smith's hidden hand).

Again, you ignore a number of government-based infrastructures that certainly make food delivery more efficient to Manhattan. You are ignoring the roads, rails and bridges built to facilitate transportation of food, the number of laws in place to ensure the safety, quantity and quality of food being delivered, the employment of police to guarding the transportation system and the justice system to ensure the laws are enforced against those who attack the food delivery. Without any of those, the food being delivered would be higher-priced and lower in quantity and quality. It is precisely the reason why we collectively organize a government and authorize it with powers that we do not have - so that support system will be in place.

(Lowest cost IS maximum efficiency if the reason of low cost is not Rockefeller's pricing at a loss to undercut and bankrupt his competitors.)

This argues the point that government and/or centralized planning are NOT required, nor even necessary, to increase efficiency.

But it doesn't support the central reason why a wolf pack organizes in the first place: because they recognize that they can eat better and safer if they hunt together under the leadership of an alpha wolf. As such, that means the other wolves give up their independence, their ability to mate as they choose, and their individualist behavior to a degree in order to be part of the pack.

Unclear thinking results in unclear writing. Unclear writing results in my having to spend a bit of time deciphering what is actually meant in order to address the intended communication.

Well, you should have thought of that before you came up with the impossible scenario of three wolves and a lamb getting together to form a pack. See what such nonsense does?

Increasing the efficiency of hunting or any other endeavor has nothing to do with addition of labor. See: Law of diminishing returns.

Yet, wolf packs have been doing it for a number of years. That is precisely the reason they run together. It is far easier for the pack to pull down a deer or a buffalo in numbers than a solitary wolf chasing after a rabbit.

Your analogy's proposition of one wolf wanting to sit down and pick his nose has absolutely nothing to do with any agreements to form a wolf pack government.

Sure it does. That wolf represents the person who somehow thinks that the purpose of the pack is to support his existence and that he needs to do nothing in terms of contributing what the rest of the pack does. So if they pull down a deer, our anarchistic wolf expects to be able to partake in the meal because he believes that the other wolves' rules don't apply to him, that somehow these rules are immoral since they didn't include his buy-in. Our silly wolf also believes that he is entitled to the right bed down in the lair at nights and benefit from the heat of the pack that is huddling together - heat generated because they worked to get the food that is providing the heat. And our lazy wolf thinks he is entitled to the protection of the pack when other predators attack him, that the pack that spent time hunting to get the food to nourish and strengthen themselves should expend that energy on his behalf.

Given the nature of our selfish and self-centered wolf, would it be any wonder if the wolf pack were to expel him from the pack and force him into a life that would be very harsh and life-threatening to him? How much time would our "sovereign" wolf spend in that "free" environment before deciding that he might be better off joining the pack?

Clearly, what you are attempting to reach here, is the justification of using FORCE against wolf number four to force wolf number four to act contrary to his own will and better judgement

.

Yes, if the other three wolves' lives were at risk due to the selfishness of the 4th wolf.

Let's put it another way: Four men at are the bottom of an empty well, trapped and unable to get out unless all four agree to work together by standing on top of the next man's shoulder's. By the time the fourth man climbs up, he will be able to reach the top edge of the well and climb out, going for help. If one man wants not to participate, does he have the inherent right to force the other men to die of starvation, thirst or exposure? Is the collective right of the other three men to live greater?

In other words, you are attempting to justify forcing the wolf to accept the government's judgement and ignore his own.

Yes, because the wolf is not acting in his best interest and the other wolves' interest. Our selfish wolf stupidly believes that he can get along without contributing to the pack. He also doesn't care about what effect his selfishness has in regards to the survival of the rest of the pack.

Just as an aside, Do you, Mr. Observer, have any duty to obey an immoral law?

Please tell me what is immoral about four wolves eating as opposed to four wolves starving.

Do you, Mr. Observer, have any duty to shove Jews and other undesirables into the ovens if that's what the law says you must do?

Oh, now I see. You are trying to blur the argument into one of morality. Ok, please explain to me how four wolves eating and surviving is as immoral as shoving Jews into ovens. Of course there is that little irony that many of the people out there who agree with you regarding this argument about the government being immoral by taking their money for taxes would have no problem shoving Jews into ovens, regardless of whether it was government-sponsored or not. In fact, they might actually pay taxes if their government did shove Jews into ovens. Aren't you uncomfortable with the company you keep?

Whose judgement do you use to determine if you are going to shove Jews and other undesirables into the oven? Yours or the government's?

Whose judgement are you using in following the same arguments that the anti-Semites in the sovereign movement use? At what point are you going to realize that there might be a current of immorality that these arguments share?

Again, unclear writing. Even so, what you are again attempting to reach here, is justification of using FORCE against wolf number four.

Not unclear, if you understood what I was saying. Force will need to be used when one person decides to operate against the well-being of the rest. That is why we arrest criminals, imprison them or execute them - and with force - to protect society. Are you arguing that it was immoral for the police to arrest the Aurora shooter? Will you argue that it is immoral to imprison him? Will you argue it is immoral to place him on trial? All of these actions are against his self-interest and freedom? Will you stand up today and protest this injustice against him, Mr. Eastman? Do you really mean what you say?

Restating for clarity: For the benefit of three wolves, do those three wolves have the right to compel the fourth to do something or to give up something against the fourth wolf's will?

No. They do not.

Ah, so you will stand up and proclaim injustice against the Aurora shooter. You will insist that because the government is using force on him, it is immoral. You will demand that he be released and his weapons restored to him.

That is why you must introduce the second part of your compound sentence - If they form a government and give the government authority and power to compel the fourth wolf.

Yes. It took you a while to get here.

I'm giving that fourth wolf my point of view. That wolf will NOT be voting for or against forming a government. That fourth wolf will NOT be legitimizing the process of his own enslavement by participating in that dog and pony show.

Good, I was pretty sure that you were that 4th wolf.

You stated: "It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy". Do you wish to argue that three wolves voting to control the fourth by use of force is a consensus and that it's legitimate?

Yes, as long as you understand that the consensus is for the purpose of benefiting all of the wolves. Just not the three.

Observer:
Hey you two, I vote we go take (steal) Poindexter's lunch money.

And you immediately break the rules. I specifically stated that the consensus had to be for the benefit of all four wolves.

This is why your analogy breaks down. This is why you are wrong in trying to blur the lines between laws and immorality. The wolf pack did not organize to exploit, rob or abuse the the 4th wolf. It organized so that all 4 wolves would eat better.

Even when the "people" are the same in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, your assertion "It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy" is shown to be the dangerous, abusive delusion that it is.

The scenario you keep trying to impose on us is one that does not exist in our society. Our government is organized for the benefit of all of our members. This is why we ended up ending stupid and immoral laws like segregation, why we passed moral laws against discrimination - they ran contrary to what the purpose of government is really for - to provide protection and benefits in our society.

If a government is organized for the purpose of only protecting one segment of society and leaves the rest out or persecutes them, then there is reason and cause to demand change in the government from those who do not receive benefits. Mr. Eastman, as a member of our society, you receive many benefits and protection from our government. You have government armed forces that protect you 24 hours a day, you have infrastructure in place that allows you to travel in relative safety and peace anywhere within our borders, that allows you the protection and intervention by the courts so that your transactions, property and income are reasonably intact.

Your argument is an attempt to hide those facts and twist the collection of taxes into an immoral action.

I called the vote a dog and pony show because its purpose is to take the above reality out of sight and make it invisible.

Wrong. The only dog and pony show was your attempt to make us believe that a lamb would hang around with 3 wolves. Oh, and then an attempt to ignore that the fourth wolf would be benefiting from hunting with the rest of the pack.

Your attempt at SOPDDD is noted. You wanted to change the analogy because you have no answer to the reality exposed within.

Your attempt at SOPDDD is exposed. You crafted an analogy that had no basis for the sole reason that you could pretend that collecting taxes is immoral. In short, you ignored reality.

You just might finally and fully understand the reality presented when you find yourself in Poindexter's place.

You just might finally and fully understand the reality presented by you if you were to be declared outlaw in a society that would grant you what you have strenuously argued for: a life that receives nothing at all from the society you have condemned. When you find yourself in a place where you cannot travel beyond the limits of your domicile, when your property is continually attacked, stolen and destroyed, when you cannot leave the safety of your home because you will immediately set upon by villains eager to end your life - all of this because you cannot count on the government to intervene and protect you - you might realize that you were arguing for the wrong thing.

[rogfulton]

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

A wedgie.

Well worth waiting for. bravo!

And it has the added advantage of being coherent.

[grixit]

I read once that in at least one of the old european societies, the formula for declaring outlawry was "let him be as a lone wolf".

[tracer]

So, wait ... "America" is a sitcom family, a bunch of crop circles, and Ted Nugent?

Damn! What country have I been living in all this time?!

[LPC]

So, wait ... "America" is a sitcom family, a bunch of crop circles, and Ted Nugent?

Those aren't "crop circles." That's contour farming with alternating bands of different crops.

[JamesVincent]

So, wait ... "America" is a sitcom family, a bunch of crop circles, and Ted Nugent?

Damn! What country have I been living in all this time?!

Ted Nugent is America.

[Dr. Caligari]

You just might finally and fully understand the reality presented by you if you were to be declared outlaw in a society that would grant you what you have strenuously argued for: a life that receives nothing at all from the society you have condemned. When you find yourself in a place where you cannot travel beyond the limits of your domicile, when your property is continually attacked, stolen and destroyed, when you cannot leave the safety of your home because you will immediately set upon by villains eager to end your life - all of this because you cannot count on the government to intervene and protect you - you might realize that you were arguing for the wrong thing.

Brilliant.

[wserra]

Yes, The Observer put it quite well.

Eastman reinforces Observer's point by throwing around the epithet "Nazi" - thereby proving that he has no idea what real Nazis would likely do to someone like him. Hint: it would give a whole different meaning to his phrase "personal attack".

[LOBO]

This...

Have a stupid theory why you shouldn't have to pay taxes? ... then this forum is for you.

Yep. I'm in the right place... To poke a stick into a hornet's nest.

...followed by a 10 page thread can never be a good thing. Anyone got the Cliff Notes version?

[grixit]

This...

Yep. I'm in the right place... To poke a stick into a hornet's nest.

...followed by a 10 page thread can never be a good thing. Anyone got the Cliff Notes version?

Waaaah-- You're not the boss of me!!!!

[ibanez2k]

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals). The legislative power is excercised by the government, as it should be.

For background, please see http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt

Sec. 134. THE great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment
of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means
of that being the laws established in that society; the first and
fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the
legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to
govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and
(as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This
legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred
and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it; nor
can any edict of any body else, in what form soever conceived, or by what
power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law, which has not
its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and
appointed: for without this the law could not have that, which is absolutely
necessary to its being a law,* the consent of the society, over whom no body
can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority
received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most
solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this
supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts: nor can any
oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power,
discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative,
acting pursuant to their trust; nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to
the laws so enacted, or farther than they do allow; it being ridiculous to
imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society, which
is not the supreme.

(* The lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of
men, belonging so properly unto the same intire societies, that for any
prince or potentate of what kind soever upon earth, to exercise the same of
himself, and not by express commission immediately and personally received
from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent, upon
whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny. Laws they
are not therefore which public approbation hath not made so. Hooker's Eccl.
Pol. l. i. sect. 10. Of this point therefore we are to note, that sith men
naturally have no full and perfect power to command whole politic multitudes
of men, therefore utterly without our consent, we could in such sort be at
no man's commandment living. And to be commanded we do consent, when that
society, whereof we be a part, hath at any time before consented, without
revoking the same after by the like universal agreement.

Laws therefore human, of what kind so ever, are available by consent. Ibid.)

I'm new to the forum. I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this as well. This quote provided by "jg" as proof against Mr. Eastman's ideas is really, in the opinion of John Locke, proof FOR Mr. Eastman's ideas. See the second paragraph in parenthesis? Where it states that this is no better than TYRANNY? Confused?

Continue on and read the next section, Section 135. Jg didn't quote it so I'll quote it here:

Sec. 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it
be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in
every common-wealth; yet,

First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives
and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member
of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it
can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they
entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer
to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute
arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or
take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot
subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state
of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of
another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation
of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up
to
the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the
legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of
it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath
no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to
destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations
of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn
closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce
their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all
men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's
actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable
to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a
declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of
mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

(* Two foundations there are which bear up public societies; the one a
natural inclination, whereby all men desire sociable life and fellowship;
the other an order, expresly or secretly agreed upon, touching the manner of
their union in living together: the latter is that which we call the law of
a commonweal, the very soul of a politic body, the parts whereof are by law
animated, held together, and set on work in such actions as the common good
requireth. Laws politic, ordained for external order and regiment amongst
men, are never framed as they should be, unless presuming the will of man to
be inwardly obstinate, rebellious, and averse from all obedience to the
sacred laws of his nature; in a word, unless presuming man to be, in regard
of his depraved mind, little better than a wild beast, they do accordingly
provide, notwithstanding, so to frame his outward actions, that they be no
hindrance unto the common good, for which societies are instituted. Unless
they do this, they are not perfect. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 10.)

Interesting. It looks like Mr. Eastman and John Locke share the same opinion, that government cannot and should not have more power than the people. That the creation can not have more power than the creator. No man can transfer to another more power than he has in himself.

Would you like some more quotes? I'm sure you recognize these names as well.

Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man. - Thomas Paine

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? - Thomas Jefferson

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?"
If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. - Frédéric Bastiat

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, 'a liberty for every man to do what he lists.' For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. - John Locke

Men existed before there was government. We had natural rights, we knew what those were, we knew good from evil, and at this point a society comes together to form a government where they make laws to protect those rights. Society then hires individuals to enforce those laws. This is not anarchy. This is the correct form of government.

[JamesVincent]

A government, by definition, has to have powers and use powers that an individual can not. Its a pretty simple idea. As some of the quotes and passages mentioned, to be free from tyranny there has to be laws. To be able to pass laws there has to be a government. For a government to exist there has to be a body of people who create or support that government. Even a dictator needs his supporters, otherwise he would not be able to assume command of a squadron, much less a country. One of the discussions we had had before on here was about the rules and definitions of the Geneva Convention and whether they applied to terrorists who have no nationality behind them. Since they are not of a nation state, but are individuals brought together, they cannot legally declare war since they dont have the recognized power of a nation. An individual cannot declare war, an individual cannot pass laws and an individual cannot enforce those laws. Yet that is what a government is for and why we start one to begin with. So all the fancy words and quotes and passages mean nothing until you acknowledge that a government has its power from a mandate of the people it governs and its power is and shall be greater then that of its people.

[Famspear]

Dear ibanez2k: Welcome to Quatloos.

Let me try to save you some time.

Mr. Dale Eastman began this thread with a quote from this web site:

Have a stupid theory why you shouldn't have to pay taxes? ... then this forum is for you.

Quoting Locke, Jefferson, etc., for the theory that a person should not have to pay taxes would be pretty stupid.

Dale Eastman has, in the past (in other places on the internet), tried to argue the completely idiotic theory that "income" for federal income tax purposes means only corporate income, gain or profit. He has also argued the nonsensical "861" argument. I don't know whether he still holds to these specific frivolous positions, as he is now reluctant to come out and clearly state what his position really is -- for understandable reasons.

The U.S. federal income tax is constitutional and is correctly applied to the income of ordinary folks. Quoting Locke or Jefferson will not get anyone around that basic legal and political truth. Arguing about what powers can and cannot be given to government will not get around that basic legal and political truth.

[Famspear]

Here's what Dale Eastman states on his web site:

The requirement to pay an "income" tax on compensation for labor or service does not apply to most people living and working in any of the 50 States united.

--from

http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/

(italics in original).

He then yammers on and on about "logic."

I "know" the truth about the federal tax law because of my examination of the material evidence and my conclusions based upon logical proof.

The "truth" about federal tax law cannot be gleaned by an "examination" of "material evidence" in the sense in which Dale Eastman uses those terms, nor can correct legal conclusions about federal tax law be determined using the methods of "logical proof" that Eastman proceeds to explain in his web site.

Mr. Eastman is wrong. The requirement to pay an income tax on compensation for labor or service does indeed apply to most people living and working in any of what he calls the "50 States united."

[Famspear]

More nonsense from Dale Eastman:

You may have noticed that I used the seemingly awkward phrase "50 States united". I do this so that there is no confusion regarding which is being discussed, the singular federal "United States" or the several united "States". Some people don't understand the significance of the capitalization, nor the difference.

Duhhh.

This is another example of why we do not take Mr. Eastman seriously.